Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sopwith Camel (Too Simple?)


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 31 October 2009 - 06:18

My first time in a Sopwith Camel was suprisingly delightful. I didn't need to use much rudder to keep the plane steady on take-off, and I found myself easily doing tricks and turns my first time off the ground. The plane seemed rather fun and easy to fly.

As fun as the plane is to fly, it doesn't feel like the Sopwith Camel I've read about. The one where pilots would have to use full right rudder to keep the plane stable on take-off, or rather make a 270 degree right turn instead of a 90 degree left one.

It's a beautiful plane and pleanty of fun, but does anyone else feel like the plane is too easy to fly, considering its reputation?
  • 0

#2 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 31 October 2009 - 07:04

Those poll options are a bit limiting. What about someone who thinks "The plane is easy to fly and I'm GLAD." Or "I don't know enough about history to even know if it's too simple or not". :mrgreen:
  • 0

#3 Chaos

Chaos
  • Posts: 624

Posted 31 October 2009 - 07:16

Those poll options are a bit limiting. What about someone who thinks "The plane is easy to fly and I'm GLAD." Or "I don't know enough about history to even know if it's too simple or not". :mrgreen:



Then they should not vote or read up on the aircraft. No survey is fool proof, I've read about the plain being so slow to turn (fighting gyro) that they would do a 270 instead of a 90. Also that on takeoff they needed lots of rudder.
  • 0

#4 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 31 October 2009 - 09:37

As fun as the plane is to fly, it doesn't feel like the Sopwith Camel I've read about. The one where pilots would have to use full right rudder to keep the plane stable on take-off…

Hi!
Look at the rudder position on take-off here (0:55):
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NDz5Yoh6E9I">
(Notice, that this movie runs a bit faster than realtime)

The others:
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related (1:40)
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related {1:40)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=j6PnKUEFX8g"> (7:40)
http://www.youtube.c...V2D3cbmmA&hl=ru"> (4:20)
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related (1:50, 2:07)

And guys… don't forget - you have an endless experience (and number of lives and trials) compared with pilots WW1. ;)
  • 0

#5 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 31 October 2009 - 16:56

And guys… don't forget - you have an endless experience (and number of lives and trials) compared with pilots WW1. ;)

You know, it never even occurred to me that WE might be better at flying these planes than the actual pilots, due to the fact that we can learn from fatal mistake instead of die from them. What a crazy thought.
  • 0

#6 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 31 October 2009 - 20:46

Actually for me first impression of flying camel is rather strange. These planes under some test manouvers dont behave natural for me. E.x. i tried to make spin to the right. Standart procedure stick backward and maximum right rudder pedal. I keep it. First flick roll to the right is ok but then plane suddenly stop the rotation and fly in some kind of " depart" - without rotation just strange straight depart in stall. These look very strange. Like game engine can't hang these manouver.

Other thing. Turn left or right. Turn left needed some left rudder apply to keep constant turn in horizont ( it tried to nose up - so it is accurate) . But turn right there is no need any rudder to make correct right turn ( plane dont even try to nose down). What i read Camel need a lot of pilot rudder correction in right turn also.

Some pilot notes about Camel turn:

"The Camel proved to be a superlative fighter, and offered heavier armament and better performance than the Pup and Triplane. In the hands of an experienced pilot, its manoeuvrability was unmatched by any contemporary type. Its controls were light and sensitive. The Camel turned rather slowly to the left which resulted in a nose up attitude due to the torque of the rotary engine. But the engine torque also resulted in the ability to turn to the right in half the time of other fighters,[3] although that resulted in more of a tendency towards a nose down attitude from the turn."

"Rotaries had a number of disadvantages, notably very high fuel consumption, partially because the engine was typically run at full throttle, and also because the valve timing was often less than ideal. The rotating mass of the engine also made it, in effect, a large gyroscope. During level flight the effect was not especially apparent, however under turning it was far more pronounced. Due to the direction of the force left-turns required some degree of effort and happened relatively slowly, combined with a tendency to nose-up, while right-turns were almost instantaneous, with a tendency for the nose to drop.[9] In some aircraft this could be advantageous in situations such as dogfights while the Sopwith Camel suffered to such an extent that it required left rudder for both left and right turns and could be extremely hazardous if full power was used over the top of a loop at low airspeeds. Trainee Camel pilots were warned to attempt their first hard right turns only at altitudes above 1,000 ft (300 m)."


I really need more testing but from first impression these planes fly in some manouvers not with physcis law. I really worry that it is limitation of ROF engine and game can't moddel it in right way.
  • 0

#7 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 31 October 2009 - 21:34

Some more notices:

" The take-off run is easy. In a wind of 10 to 15 knots you are airborne in a couple of plane lengths at 35 mph and climbing out at 60 mph, with a rate of climb of almost 1,000 feet a minute. The elevators are sensitive, as is the rudder. Consequently, when fling for any distance I often put the heels of my shoes on the floor tie wires, because the vibration of the Le Rhone through the rudder bar exaggerates the rudder movements.

In level flight at 100 mph indicated, the Camel is delightful, with just a hint of rudder being required for straight flight. The structure is rugged enough to feel comfortable in loops, and being slightly tail-heavy it goes up and over in an incredibly small circle in the sky, and faster than any other WWI aircraft I have flown. Sneeze and your halfway through a loop before your aware of what’s happened. 110 mph is enough to carry you through, and as you slow down over the top you must feed in rudder against the torque.

In military shows I have ground strafed, and as soon as the airspeed reaches 130 to 140 mph the nose begins to hunt up and down, and the elevator becomes extremely sensitive. I feel this action is due largely to the square windshield between the two Vickers guns, causing a substantial burble over the tail surfaces.

Turns are what the Camel is all about. Turning to the right with the torque requires the top rudder to hold the nose up, and the speed with which you can complete a 360-degree turn is breathtaking. Left turns are slower, with the nose wanting to rise during the turn. But small rudder input easily keeps the nose level with the horizon. In stalls at 35 to 40 mph the nose drops frighteningly fast and hard to the right, but you also get control back quickly, although a surprising amount of altitude has been lost. I have had the pleasure of limited dog fighting with other WWI fighters, and there are none that can stay with a Camel in a turn.

I found in ROF such similarity to RL plane:
- at take off there is need right rudder for keep plane straight
- in left turn there is nose up tendency
- at higher speed elevator is oversensivity



In Camel ROF i find such problems:

- in right turn there is no needed left rudder to keep nose at horizont
- at normal stall condition plane drop left wing instead right
- plane is more prone to the left spin then to the right
- plane behave unnatural when you tried accelearated spin to the right - after one flick roll plane stop rotation and get strange deprart in rather straight fly. I discvoer that at higher speed it could hold right spin but at lower speeds it could make only 1 spinloop then stop.
- there is a problem to get out of left spin - i found that to get out of spin help more stick backward then forward???
  • 0

#8 leitmotiv

leitmotiv
  • Posts: 45

Posted 01 November 2009 - 10:09

"The Pup [had been] smooth and stable, mellow like old wine. The Camel was a buzzing hornet, a wild thing, burning in the air like raw spirit fires the throat. The fierce little beast answered readily to intelligent handling, but was utterly remorseless against brutal or ignorant treatment. Possessed of a sensitive elevator control, she reacted swiftly to slight fore and aft stick movement. I spun her and she fell earthwards in a mad whirl.
"Her fuselage was short. She was tail heavy, so that one had to press the stick forward in normal flight because there was no tailplane adjustment. Her rudder was too small. The gyroscopic action of the rotary engine in her light wood-and wire framework forced her nose down in a right-hand turn. To make swift right-hand turns without losing height one had to apply left rudder the instant the maneuver was began and push down on full rudder before full bank. Then the Camel turned very fast, far more swiftly than to the left . It was mainly on this ability that she won her fame in fights, for the heavier stationary-engined German scouts could not turn as quickly and, when they were engaged at close quarters, the Camel could make three turns to their two in a right-hand circle, in spite of her relative inferiority in climb and speed at even moderate altitudes. But let the ham-fisted or the inexperienced pilot pull the stick just a little too far back while turning all out, and the Camel would flick quickly into a spin, which was the pitfall of many a novice and, could be a death-trap at low heights."

Norman Macmillan, M.C., 45 Squadron, RFC

From: DOG-FIGHT, Norman Franks, pages 120-21

My opinion is that the model fulfills the requirements of the above very well, but, what surprises me is the complete absence of torque in comparison to the Dr.I model which requires the right rudder pedal to be fully depressed to hold the beast straight. The ROF Camel flies straight with no exertion by the virtual pilot. My first impression was that the Camel was a gentleman compared to the Dr.I. I was impressed by the ability to whirl to the right seemingly forever until the inevitable spin. It truly is tricky to use. I thought the OVER FLANDERS FIELDS Camel better replicated the nasty initial oscillation in a quick right turn. What truly seems absent is the menace of the beastie, as was so well described above.
  • 0

#9 MSpanke

MSpanke
  • Posts: 18

Posted 01 November 2009 - 17:34

I have never flown a real Camel, anyone from the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome around?

The characteristics are the same as reported by WWI pilots, and it didn't kill most of it's pilots on takeoff.

The beastie is there, with rudder encouragement and snaps to the turn very quick. As for the DRI, my flying style is more suited to it and I find far more acrobatic.
  • 0

#10 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 01 November 2009 - 19:40

I really dont think that Camel in ROF is not easy and simple plane to combat. Its oversensivity controls make gunnery very hard expecially during manouvers and follow target which are hiding behind upper Camel wing make things even worse.

I think rather that Fokker Dr1 is too easy in hard right turns where it cant stall with full sitck back . Moreover DR1 could outturn Camel very quick and easy which i dont think is accurate. Dr1 turn like the hell in the right and could outrun Camel in 1-1.5 circles without problem. Other hand Dr1 is much more difficult to turn left then Camel. I think both planes are not easy in combat but still Dr1 has too great turninig ablility in right side witout any stall.
I think that if Dr1 would little more easy in turn left ( more like Camel) and more difficult to turn right ( like Camel) with possibility of get stall in such turn the things would be more accurate.

I hope developers will care aboit it and recheck these Dr1 handling characteristic.
  • 0

#11 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 02 November 2009 - 05:21

Those poll options are a bit limiting. What about someone who thinks "The plane is easy to fly and I'm GLAD." Or "I don't know enough about history to even know if it's too simple or not". :mrgreen:

Sorry, I was going to give a wider variety of choices, but I thought it would be better to get a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer out of people. If you're not sure, don't vote! :P

As fun as the plane is to fly, it doesn't feel like the Sopwith Camel I've read about. The one where pilots would have to use full right rudder to keep the plane stable on take-off…

Hi!
Look at the rudder position on take-off here (0:55):
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NDz5Yoh6E9I">
(Notice, that this movie runs a bit faster than realtime)

The others:
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related (1:40)
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related {1:40)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=j6PnKUEFX8g"> (7:40)
http://www.youtube.c...V2D3cbmmA&hl=ru"> (4:20)
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related"> … re=related (1:50, 2:07)

And guys… don't forget - you have an endless experience (and number of lives and trials) compared with pilots WW1. ;)

I have to admit, these flight models are the best I've seen in any game. Take-off looks almost identical to the videos shown. The plane even rocks back and forth if you cut the engine on and off. I think I should have taken into account I had nearly flown over a dozen aircraft in the game for countless hours before flying in the Sopwith Camel. Not only that, most pilots only lived to fly for a few weeks while I've been addictivly going at this for months.

The only discrepency I could see in the Sopwith Camel is that it may have less torque than it is supposed to. It turns very well to the left as well as to the right. Other than that, the flight model is spot on.

You do have to give the plane left rudder to keep the nose on the horizon in a left or right turn.

Kwiatek - turning very tightly to the right will require left rudder to keep your nose on the horizon, otherwise the nose will drop down and you will loose your energy.

Anyhow, the flight model is very close, so I won't nit-pick at it any further. I wouldn't be suprised if more torque is added to the model in the future, but I also wont cry if it is left as is. This game is probably as close to a Sopwith Camel as I will ever get in real life. Good job, and thanks for the planes! :D
  • 0

#12 leitmotiv

leitmotiv
  • Posts: 45

Posted 03 November 2009 - 22:59

All these from comments by WWI RFC/RNAS/RAF pilots who flew the camel quoted by Chaz Bowyer in SOPWITH CAMEL: KING OF COMBAT, pages 70-76:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
  • 0

#13 Jimko

Jimko
  • Posts: 18

Posted 05 November 2009 - 18:38

An.Petrovich…

I find the Camel flight model to be very good based on many historical comments, some of which others have quoted in this thread. In the matter of rudder control for banking turns and her vicious spin tendencies, she seems to be just the way many pilots described her. Overall, I'm happy with Camel and she has always been my faourite in any sim.

Having said that, the issue of practical vs realistic flight modeling must always be compromised to some extent in a flight sim for the general public, I think. One issue I have found with the Camel is that she can be quite difficult to control at higher altitudes of 10 - 15,000 feet and yet this should be within a reasonable operational height for the Camel. Over 15,000 feet, there definitely was control loss reported by pilots. Still I wonder if this flight model is too control sensitive at these elevations, as the plane will flop and spin very quickly relative to control input at lower elevations.

The other issue, perhaps, is the tendency to 'porpoise' or pitch up and down. The Camel was known to do this at higher speeds particularly in a dive, making gunnery difficult, but I wonder if it has been flight modeled a bit too severely for a flight sim, particularly with so many different types of joysticks in use.

My thoughts. Still, my favourite plane of them all! Well done!
  • 0

#14 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:02

Not "too simple". I haven;t voted, because none of the answers apply for me. I actually like the way it flies and when flown aggresivly it will bite you! (spins)

Two things I noted:

1. "To make swift right-hand turns without losing height one had to apply left rudder the instant the maneuver was began and push down on full rudder before full bank"

I have read this a couple of times, yet I don't see it in the game. In a tight right turn I sometimes use a little left rudder, but I don not recognise "apply left rudder the instant you begin turning" or "full left rudder at full bank".

2. Elevator sensitivity on the camel was high, but this was specially at higher speeds. In RoF it seems to be very sensitive through the whole flight envelope. Then there is a practical limitation you have to take into account as a lot of joysticks have a little deadzone and over-reacting quickly becomes a real problem.
  • 0

#15 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:30

I only think these two things that is not right:

1) No need to use rudder in turns.
2) Camel turns just as good to left than to right (contrary to many pilot accounts)
  • 0

#16 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 06 November 2009 - 13:48

I only think these two things that is not right:

1) No need to use rudder in turns.
2) Camel turns just as good to left than to right (contrary to many pilot accounts)


One interesting account I read stated that pilots would "rather make a 270 degree right turn than 90 degree left turn" to change direction. This may be an exaggeration, but indicative of the mindset regarding the disparity between right and left turns in the Camel.
  • 0

#17 GATT

GATT
  • Posts: 459

Posted 09 November 2009 - 06:35

The most famous pilot notes (Sykes, Macmillan …) state that:

a) in a hard left turn the Camel was more or less equal to other 1917-18 german planes: Macmillan (advanced Camel instructor) says it had the same performance of an Albatros D.V. However, it was very good in a climbing left turn, thank to the torque/gyro effects.

b) in a hard right turn, it was twice as fast than in a left turn: for example, two complete right turns of a Camel against three of an Albatros D.V.

Not more, not less.

So guys, take a Camel, an Albatros D.V, a chronometer and take off ;)
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users