Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fokker Dr.I Dreideckerholics Anonymous


  • Please log in to reply
255 replies to this topic

#1 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 November 2014 - 06:33

J9vk0CV.jpg
 
Salute to all. I have created this thread in late 2014 in honor of the Fokker Dr.I Dreidecker, a plane that arguably evokes emotions of both love and hate in the flight simulator community -- which means, although small, the Dr.I is not to be taken lightly. 
 
Unfortunately, as of the 1.034 patch of December 2014, the flight model of several rotary engined aircraft was intentionally nerfed, including the Fokker Dr.I, Sopwith Triplane and the Sopwith Camel. The aforementioned legendary planes were penalized in their max speed from a range of 22km/h* to 14km/h, making them drop in relative performance against their immediate adversaries and contemporaries. In face of that, I had previously removed all the information on this topic, but I think it is important to reinstate the original data alongside with new information so that new players can have available material not only to appreciate these legendary machines but also to understand what we have in game in comparison to their rightful performances.
 
*the data is from the original Rise of Flight Sopwith Camel, which most likely had the specs from the Bentley version (150hp), and not the 130hp.
 
Obviously, this thread is for the lovers of this nimble aircraft, a sort of rapier in the hands of experienced pilots and enthusiasts of the art of turnfighting. And besides information about the plane, let's share anecdotal accounts, skins, screenshots, movies and combat tactics and styles about the Dreidecker and its direct opponents, keeping the spirit of this classic hunter alive if not in Rise of Flight in the WWI community in general.
 
Below are the plane specs, mostly from: http://www.fokkerdr1...ifications.htm.
 
dxV8IsT.jpg
 
vULcb5l.jpg
 
YFNrl0g.jpg
 
Khhg4k0.jpg
 
BwD934j.jpg
 
bAgrUmc.jpg
 
GISzOJS.jpg
 
 
 
Below are some of the historic replicas and the data that I have collected from the Fokker Dr.I over the years. 
 
j7p6D1b.jpg
 
The Fokker DR - I #489 /17
 
This is a reproduction started in Germany by Eberhard Fritsch, completed and flown by the Association. Great care was taken to ensure the aeroplane was built to original specifications. The engine and instruments are original. The first flight took place on May 3 1991. Previously painted to represent Karl Bolle's aircraft, it was overhauled and recovered in 1999. The aeroplane now sports the colours of DR-1 489/17 (W.N 2215) of Jasta 14 in 1918. [Memorial Flight Association]
 
Weight: 590 kg.
Engine: Oberursel rotatif 110 hp.
Max speed: 180km/h.
 
Note: I wrote to the Memorial Flight Association and the maximum speed is from what they recall original tests made by the Service Technique de l'Aéronautique (STAé) at Villacoublay aerodrome.
 
----------------------------
 
gBRRQQJ.jpg
 
Mikael Carlson's Dr.I
Engine: Le Rôhne rotary engine 110 HP.
Empty weight: 474 kg.
Cruise speed: 160km/h.
Max speed: 185Km/h.
 
 
----------------------------
 
Besides the data of real Dr.I's flying with original powerplants -- and it was common to have Dr.I's powered by Le Rôhne engines back then -- the Engineering Division of the Air Service at McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio, on May 20, 1921, gathered a performance chart while testing a Fokker D.VIII powered by an 110hp Oberursel, giving it 185km/h at sea level (http://www.airminded.net/) According to NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the Fokker Dr.I was more drag efficient than the Fokker D.VII, Fokker D.VIII and the Nieuport 17. The reason is that wing cross sections didn't play a major role on drag, while wing area and other surfaces did. 
 
----------------------------
 
Also, I would like to point to the not so recent topic created by Chill on the flight model of the Fokker Dr.I he has created for FSX: http://riseofflight....ed/?hl= chill31 Amazing work from all he writes, which for me demystified and glorified even more the flight model process, and although he said that the project is an eternal work in progress, he reached the final flight model with a top speed of 179km/h (111mp/h) at sea level and 161km/h (100mp/h) at 10.000ft, according to the experience he has with his own Fokker Dr.I, and everyone here in the community know what I'm talking about, he flies a real Dr.I replica, on the photo below. Interestingly, this is the max speed of the original Fokker Dr.I we had in Rise of Flight, before the 1.034 patch.
 
VB9UwkM.jpg
 
Chill's Fokker Dr.I
 
----------------------------
 
At last but not least, a post from The Aerodrome, quoting one of its members, Kacey: (http://www.theaerodr...64&postcount=14):
 
I still get the Fokker Dr.I with this 99bhp@msl flying at around 109-111mph. This is with an "optimal/compromise" prop. With a "climb bias" prop these figures could go down 5-10mph. (I believe we "don't know" what kind of prop was on most of the reported speed figures)
 
Going further, you should read "KC's Fokker Dr.I Analysis": http://www.theaerodr...36&postcount=26, where it is shown his data for each engine, reproduced below for better understanding.
 
6nPycPn.jpg
 
Note that Dr.I's running on Ersatzöl seemed to have the engine limited to over 1200rpm, while the Castor Oil reached higher rpm. Nevertheless the numbers don't seem to disagree. On top of that, the figures of the Sopwith Triplane / Camel make sense with the Dr.I's results -- altogether with the tests and performance of the D.VIII with also a 110 hp Oberursel. Note that Kacey also posts the results of the Dr.I at McCook Field.
 
For example, from an old RAF manual [Sopwith Triplane Aces of World War 1]:
 
The glide was continued to 1.000ft, where the engine power was set at 1.100 rpm[1] and a level speed run made. Subsequent corrections for temperature showed the aircraft achieved a true air speed of 111 mph [179kmh]. This figure agreed with performance figures quoted for the aircraft in 1917/18. The speed run also enabled a last check to be made of the effectiveness of the adjustable horizontal stabilizer as a trimming device. (...) A speed of 105 knots [194.5km/h] indicated was the maximum to which the aircraft was flown.
 
[1] The British Air Board data states maximum rpm of 1300rpm for a short period of time. Most data comes from 1200/1250rpm.
 
Obviously this thread is not for flight model bickering. My research was to restore its rightful place as it all indicates, that's all. Not hard to understand. I might also edit this first post with new information / text review or numbers upon necessity.
 
k2IKBRz.jpg
 
Note: this research is a compilation of several books and articles, sometimes edited to fall into the right place or attain fluidity. The credits are in the text or at the end of the research. In general, the numbers of machines on the front line comes from Lloyd Leichentritt and his website Fokker Dr.1.com. The goal of the research is to better understand the context and the impression left by the dreidecker during the war.
 
DcZ01EQ.jpg
 
    Fokker Dr.I's from Jasta 11 stationed at Léchelle in early April 1918.
 
-------------
 
Placing into context -- Fokker's Path to a Triplane Design.
 
 
Whilst the first Camels were being delivered to the front, the Sopwith Triplane had been making its presence felt amid the allied aerial debacle known as "Bloody April", taking a noticeable toll of German aircraft. [Sopwith Camel Vs Fokker Dr.I]. (...) The Tripehound made a deep impression on German pilots and, subsequently, the German aircraft industry. Not that three-winged aircraft were new. Designers had worked on triplanes since before the war, but the Sopwith fighter was the first to be built in quantity. Generally, three-winged aeroplanes were rarely favored, but the Sopwith's light yet powerful engine (the 110 hp Clerget 9Z, replaced by the 130 hp CIerget 9b in the summer) helped its success. [Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I]
 
Anthony Herman Gerard Fokker (1890 -1939) occasionally visited the front lines himself in order to talk with Jagdstaffel pilots about the advantages and disadvantages of both his and competing designs. He was the only aircraft manufacturer to do this personally, and because of this he was famous among the pilots for always having an open mind with regard to their wants and needs. As was the case around the end of April 1917, when he visited Jasta 11 and its squadron leader Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen (1893 -1918). Von Richthofen had recently (on 20 April 1917) had a nerve-wracking experience with a Sopwith Triplane during which the enemy pilot conducted a brutal cat-and-mouse game with him, narrowly surviving the encounter in his Albatros D.III. As a result, he subsequently impressed upon Fokker the urgency in developing a high-performance airplane which could hold its own with the new British combat aircraft. [Fokker V5/Dr.1 -- Achim Sven Engels, Wolfgang Schuster] 
 
Richthofen later wrote: "The Sopwith Triplane is the best aircraft the enemy possesses; it climbs better, is more maneuverable and does not lose altitude in a bank. Is faster and can be dived straight down". Richthofen friend and fellow Jasta 11 ace, Kurt Wolf, concurred that the Sopwith was superior to the D.III in speed, maneuverability and rate of climb. [Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I]
 
[German] inspectorate aeronautical engineers were motivated by reports of the new Sopwith's performance against such a skilled pilot as Manfred von Richthofen, whose 52nd and most recent victory had been a triplane. When a Sopwith Triplane landed with engine trouble within German lines on 6 April, it offered a perfect example for study -- according to Achim Sven Engels and Wolfgang Schuster, Richthofen invited Fokker to witness first-hand one of these triplanes in a dogfight -- and inspired the Inspectorate to order 'dreidecker' prototypes from the Pfalz, Siemens-Schuckert and Fokker factories. Ultimately, the Fokker Dr.I was selected as Germany's full-production triplane fighter and went on to great fame as an 'acrobatic champion, quite unlike any contemporary fighter'. [Red Baron - The Life and Death of an Ace, Peter Kilduff]
 
Meanwhile, with the introduction of the fourth generation of British fighters in March of 1917, the Bristol F.2B, soon followed by the Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a, the Sopwith Camel, along with the French Spad XIII, the challenge turned to the Germans, which only a year later would have comparable fighters to contest the Entente air power. Indicative of the improvement in the Entente fighters was a private communication from Baron Manfred von Richthofen to a close friend serving on the staff of Ernst von Hoeppner.
 
The English... can fly whither they wish, with absolute command of the air not only over their own lines, but over the entire countryside... Our aircraft are inferior to the English in an absolutely laughable fashion... And in addition to better quality of aircraft, they have greater numbers... And the people at home, for nearly a year, have developed nothing better than this lousy Albatros, remaining with the Albatros D III with which I fought last fall... English single-seaters climb better and are faster than us, and the English even have already [the Bristol fighter] a two-seater, which can overhaul an Albatros, easily overpowering us in turns, against which one is virtually powerless. [The European Powers in the First World War] (...) Furthermore, he [Fokker] has a Triplane that is certainly no longer in the formative stages and has already shown exceptional climb and speed. That must be unreservedly supported and sent to the front in large numbers as soon as we have rotary engines. You would not believe how low morale is among the fighter pilots presently at the front because of their sorry machines. No one wants to be a fighter pilot anymore. [Morrow, German Airpower.... p. 109]
 
Low morale was taking its toll along with the enemy, and Richthofen demanded change. 
 
July 14, 1917, 20 machines were ordered.
 
About the same time, in the summer of 1917, the Sopwith Camel started to gradually replace the Sopwith Triplane to become the mainstay of the British air forces. Gould Lee accounts:
 
The RNAS were at this time converting their fighter squadrons from Triplanes to Bentley engined Camels because their pilots had found that the latest mark of Albatros, the D-V, was slightly superior to the Triplane. This favored treatment, so baffling to indignant RFC pilots flying obsolete and obsolescent aeroplanes was one of the consequences of years of maladministration by the higher echelons of the RFC and RNAS.
 
August 28, 1917, the first two pre-production Dreideckers arrived at Markebeeke, Belgium, and were designated F.I, serials 102/17 and 103/17, and could be distinguished from the later version by a slight curve to the tailplane leading edge, a slightly different cowling and the lack of wing skids. Later, the plane designation would change to Dr.I, 'Dr' standing for Dreidecker, or 'triplane'. They were sent to Jastas 10 and 11 for combat evaluation. Prior to the F.I's delivered to the front, there was at least one D.VI prototype that gained the F.I designation. Most likely two, the F.I 100/17, which was a test bed that among other changes received wingspan and fuselage modifications, and the F.I 101/17, for stress test.
 
September 1st, 1917, Rittmeister Baron Manfred Siegfried von Richthofen, holder of the Pour le Mérite, prepared for his first war patrol in the new triplane on the next morning of the publicity presentation of the F.I 102/17 and F.I 103/17. The fighter was so new that it had not been painted on any part with the red dope that denoted not only the Baron, but his Jagdstaffel 11 as well. It had standard streaked olive brown factory finish camouflage over a light grayish-blue finish which resulted in a neutral, grayish general impression. The black national iron cross insignia on the wings and fuselage were on a white background. The rudder was also white, while the undersides were a shade of light grayish-blue. [Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I]
 
Note that Voss' machine, the F.I 103/17, later flew with a captured 110 hp Le Rhône engine T6247J, from Nieuport 17 A6693 and flown by Lt. E J D Townsend of 60th Sqdn., who was shot down on 5th April 1917 by Vzfw Sebastian Festner from Jasta 11 for his 6 victory (Thomas Crean). This was established by the British report on 103/17. It also appears that Richthofen was delivered a machine already equipped with the Le Rhône, perhaps proof of his prestige.
 
Richthofen shot down two enemy aircraft in the next two days. He reported to the Kommandierender General der Luftstreitkräfte that the F.I was superior to the Sopwith Triplane [ Weyl 1965, p. 232]. The Baron recommended that fighter squadrons be reequipped with the new aircraft as soon as possible. 
 
In the days that followed, reports of Fokker triplanes sightings started to come to the desks of the Entente headquarters just as had happened to the Germans months before, when the Sopwith Triplane reached the front. In one of them, Capt. Arthur Stanley Gould Lee, of the 46th Sqdn., gives a jarring account.
 
We ran into the new Hun triplane this morning. Scott led Hughes, Shadwell, Armitage and me, and we were well on the other side of the Lines by six o'clock. (...) After an hour at 13,000 without seeing much except a strong formation of D.H.4s making east on a bombing raid, and of course the inevitable artillery spotters apparently standing still far below, we were bounced out of the sun by nine D-Vs. (...) It was then that I had a brief contact with the triplane, which stood out not only because it was a tripe but because of its performance. It was an astonishing sight to watch it soaring up over the other Huns in a steep effortless climb. It's very like a Sopwith Triplane, rotary engined, but the middle and top wings are longer than the bottom, and when it approaches, the wing-tips seem on the slope.
 
(...) Then the triplane, becoming bored, started a little war on his own. He climbed up well above his pack and dived alone at whichever Pup happened to be handy, fired a burst, then zoomed up and away back to the others. I happened to be one of the handy Pups at a moment when I was in a steep turn after firing fifty rounds at a Hun dappled like a snake. I heard the rattle of guns, saw tracer flash by my right shoulder, jerked the machine into a split-ass turn towards him, but he zoomed as I fired, half-rolled and slid back to his own team. Afterwards, I found he'd put twelve rounds in a neat group through my right upper wing, a foot from the centre section strut. I sincerely hope my brief burst holed him too. (...) Anyway, after four or five of these dive-and-zoom efforts with no results, he climbed away and made south, with two D-Vs hanging on their props trying to reach him. [Gould Lee -- No Parachute: A Classic Account of War in the Air in WWI]
 
The combat evaluation came to an abrupt conclusion when Oberleutnant Kurt Wolff, Staffelführer of Jasta 11, was shot down in 102/17 on 15 September, and Leutnant Werner Voss, Staffelführer of Jasta 10, was killed in 103/17 on 23 September.
 
September 23, 1917, a great fight -- Captain James McCudden and Bowman reported on the last fight of the German ace Werner Voss in his triplane. At the moment of his death it appears that Voss had already ten kills flying the Fokker Dr.I, in a short span of three weeks, including five Sopwith Camels -- six, according to Jon Guttman.
 
The Hun triplane was practically underneath our formation now, and so down we dived at a colossal speed. I went to the right, Rhys-Davids to the left, and we got behind the triplane together. The German pilot saw us and turned in a most disconcertingly quick manner, not a climbing nor Immelmann turn, but a sort of flat half spin. By now the German triplane was in the middle of our formation, and its handling was wonderful to behold. The pilot seemed to be firing at all of us simultaneously, and although I got behind him a second time, I could hardly stay there for a second. His movements were so quick and uncertain that none of us could hold him in sight at all for any decisive time. [James McCudden -- Flying Fury: Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps.]
 
At that altitude he had a much better rate of climb, or rather zoom, than we had and frequently he was the highest machine of the seven and could have turned east and got away had he wished to, but he was not that type and always came down on us again. (...) Our elation was not nearly as great as you might have imagined. Rhys Davids, I think, was genuinely upset. [Grp Cpt. Geoffrey Hilton Bowman 56 Sqdn. -- High in the Empty Blue, by Alex Revell.]
 
October 10, 1917, the first production aircrafts were delivered to Jasta 11, and on the 11th to Jasta 15, with numbers reaching 17 machines at the front line.
 
The spectacular performance of Voss' new Fokker triplane was as jarring to the British as their Sopwith Triplane had previously been to the Germans. Unfortunately for the Germans, that advantage was to prove short-lived. On October 30, 1917, Leutnant Heinrich Gontermann, commander of Jasta 15 and a 39-victory ace, was killed when the top wing of his new Fokker Dr.I 115/17, disintegrated. The next day, Leutnant Gnther Pastor, a pilot from Jasta 11, was killed under similar circumstances in Dr.I 121/17. [The Triplane Fighter Craze of 1917, By Robert Guttman]
 
November 2nd, 1917, Idflieg -- Inspektion der Fliegertruppen - "Inspectorate of Flying Troops" -- grounded all triplanes pending an inquiry due to wing failures. Idflieg convened a Sturzkommission (crash commission) which concluded that poor construction and lack of waterproofing had allowed moisture to damage the wing structure [Weyl 1965, pp. 233-234.]
 
November 28, 1917, after testing a modified wing at Adlershof, Idflieg authorized the triplane's return to service. [Weyl 1965, pp. 238-239.] Production resumed in early December.
 
November / December of 1917, an increase to 35 Fokker Dr.I's on the front line was reported.
 
January 1918, 117 machines were reported on the front line.
 
February 1918, 143 machines were reported on the front line.
 
Meanwhile, the Jagdgeschwader was dogged by operational problems. Richthofen felt that his units were being poorly deployed by Hauptmann Wilhelm Haehnelt, Officer in Charge of Aviation for the 2nd Army. As in the past, he sought intervention by Fritze von Falkenhayn, as his letter of 27 February stated:
 
A few days ago I sent you a report about the Rizinus-Ersatz [synthetic lubricant produced from coal tars] relative to rotary engines. I am of the opinion that, due to the poor [-quality] oil (Rizinus-Ersatz) that is available to us, rotary engines are no longer suitable for this war. Therefore, I set no high value on having rotary engines in my Geschwader, even when they produce 200 horsepower. As the situation is now, I would prefer to have the Fokker [D.VII] with the BMW engine or the supercharged Mercedes. Should the Fokkers be issued with unsupercharged engines, I would not refuse them. [Red Baron - The Life and Death of an Ace, by Peter Kilduff]
 
In general, the pilots considered the Fokker Dr.I superior and much more maneuverable than the Albatros and the Pfalz D.III up to altitudes of 7.000ft, when it was a feared match for the Entente planes, nonetheless, the inline engines prevailed at high altitudes, even though Rudolph Stark accounts that the Dr.I could rise beyond the service ceiling of the Albatros, of 16/17.000ft, and bring down the enemy. It fitted well the service to intercept bombing formations. Not long before that, the Sopwith Triplane, with a rotary 130hp Clerget engine, could reach unprecedented heights of 23.000ft* and overcome the Albatros in all aspects. 
 
*Sir Herbert Thompson -- Voices in Flight.
 
With respect to the performance of engine modifications -- a common trait for the Fokker Dr.I -- Greg VanWyngarden tells that Josef Jacobs, who had two Fokker Dr.I's powered by 130hp Clerget engines, mentions that Lt A M Roberts of 74 Squadron, who was shot down and taken POW by him on 19 July, "...was astonished at the speed of my triplane".
 
March / April of 1918, were reported 125-150 Fokker Dr.I's on the front line -- peak of 171, according to Guttman and Franks and VanWyngarden 2001, p. 22. Although it is believed that not all of those 171 machines were operational, bringing the numbers back to near 150.
 
April 1918, five production Fokker Dr.I's were covered with silk skin. They were deployed to JG I and turned out to reach higher speeds than the aircraft with linen fabric. What was more, the aircraft were easy to clean of any grime, especially oil. [Fokker Dr.I – the aces’ aircraft / by T. J. Kowalski, M. Ryś]
 
Undermining the effectiveness of all of Germany's rotary engines was their need for castor oil, readily available to the Allies but not to the Germans, who strove to develop a synthetic substitute. It was probably in the course of testing such ersatz lubricants that Dr Is 485/17, 527/17 and 562/17 were fitted with captured 130hp Clerget engines. And 100/18 was test-flown with a captured 160hp Gnome Monosoupape, all in April 1918. [Sopwith Camel Vs Fokker Dr I: Western Front 1917-18, Jon Guttman]
 
May 1918, the end of the Fokker Dr.I production, with the last ten machines delivered, when were reported 145-150 Dr.I's on the front line.
 
June 1918, Dr.I numbers begin to decrease on the front line.
 
July 1918, 118 machines were reported on the front line. At this point, the most important Jagdstaffels, such as 6, 11 and 4 were fully equipped with the new Fokker D.VII, while the Dr.I's were reassigned to the less relevant fighter squadrons. 
 
Along with the disruption of Dr.I replacements, the summer temperatures combined with the synthetic lubricant caused the Oberursel Ur II engines to overheat in some cases and lead to malfunctions, forcing emergency lands, which often resulted in a crash. Still, the Dr.I continued in service on the front line until the end of the war, when it is said that a tank of castor oil from a downed airplane was more valued than the engine itself. As an example, the Sopwith Camel was filled with 5,75 gallons of castor oil.
 
August 1918, 65 machines were reported on the front line.
 
September 1918, 69 machines were reported on the front line.
 
October 1918, less than 10 machines were reported on the front line.
 
November 1918, no records, although, from The Aerodrome posts:
 
There is also evidence August Raben flew a Dr.I out of Jasta 18 until the end of the war. [Terry "Taz" Phillips.]
 
Leutnant Josef Jacobs, Jasta 7, had two [all-black] that he flew throughout 1918. He was shot down in October 1918 in Dr.I 450/17. Leutnant August Raben flew Fokker DR.I 481/17 to the end of the war. Another was in use in Jasta 59 [Dan_San_Abbott].
 
Moreover, (...) Josef Jacobs made an offer to the German frontline troops in his vicinity -- if they brought in a rotary engine from a downed allied machine in god condition, he would give them a case of champagne. [Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I] Jacobs would also have an unmatched numbers of victories, over 30, while flying Dr.I's. [G. Jacobs]
 
Still on Jacobs, Stephen Lawson [The Aerodrome] accounts: 'What I found interesting was the wine and Champagne was offered to unit commanders and not the front line troops.' On his triplanes, Stephen Lawson continues: 'Jacobs focus was to keep a reliable rotary in his two Triplanes. While horse power was a bit higher than the Oberursel 120hp, the other Fok.D.VII types (powered by the 180 -200hp Mercs.) in his unit had to stay throttled back for him to lead. He never commented except to say that it was important for him to keep the Triplanes operational. He never compared the two powerplants and their performance in his diary or his combat reports. His only comment about the Clergets was that he found them a satisfactory replacement.' Note: Stephen has the publishing rights of a big chuck of Jacob's historical documents and is considered a world's authority on him.
 
List of Fokker Dr.I aces compiled by Knusel, from The Aerodrome.
 
Josef Jacobs 32 (48)
Manfred von Richthofen 19 (80)
Hans Kirschstein 15 (27)
Viktor von Pressentin 12 (15)
Werner Voss 10 (48)
Hans Wolff 10 (10)
Karl Bolle ~9 (36)
Ernst Udet 8 (62)
Fritz Rumey 8 (45)
Hans Pippart 8 (22)
Franz Hemer 8 (18)
Otto Esswein 8 (12)
Wilhelm Reinhard 6 (20)
Hans Weiss 5 (16)
Richard Plange 5 (7)
Robert Hildebrandt 5 (6)
Edgar Scholtz 5 (6)
 
Research:
 
Lloyd Leichentritt, Fokker Dr.1.com 
The Aerodrome forum
Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I, Norman Franks
Red Baron - The Life and Death of an Ace, Peter Kilduff
The European Powers in the First World War, Spencer C. Tucker
Morrow, German Airpower.... p. 109
Fokker V5/Dr.1 -- Achim Sven Engels, Wolfgang Schuster
Fokker Dr.I – the aces’ aircraft / by T. J. Kowalski, M. Ryś
Sopwith Camel Vs Fokker Dr I: Western Front 1917-18, Jon Guttman
The Triplane Fighter Craze of 1917, Robert Guttman
Gould Lee -- No Parachute: A Classic Account of War in the Air in WWI
James McCudden -- Flying Fury: Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps
High in the Empty Blue, by Alex Revell
Wikipedia
Rise of Flight store
 
The Aerodrome quotes:
 
Terry "Taz" Phillips
Dan_San_Abbott
G. Jacobs
StephenLawson
Greg VanWyngarden
Knusel

Edited by SeaW0lf, 01 October 2018 - 15:54.
1418972687

  • 1
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#2 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 November 2014 - 06:34

To help find some relevant material posted on this topic:

 

Fokker prototype F.I 102/17, flown by Manfred von Richthofen

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=617492

 

Fokker Dr.I 'Marie'

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=617707

 

Fokker F.I 103/1, from Guido Ludwig Scheffer collection.

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=617969

 

Gould Lee recounts his first encounters with the Fokker DR.I.

 

Leutnant Josef Carl Peter Jacobs (1894-1978)

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=637840

 

Vfw Franz Hemer

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=638346

 

A. Fokker films: Von Richthofen, Goering, WWI flying aces

http://riseofflight....ymous/?p=646265

 

Zig-zag marked Jasta 19 Dreidecker

https://riseofflight...ymous/?p=686727

 

Rudolf Stark's life history and his Fokker Dr.1 148/17

https://riseofflight...mous/?p=690000]

 

Werner Voss' Fokker F.I 103/17 and his life history

  • 1
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#3 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 November 2014 - 06:35

It could not be otherwise, two legends -- pilot and mount -- which have become inseparable in history. First I recommend the reading of Manfred von Richthofen's book (Der Rote Kampfflieger): http://www.richthofen.com/

 

And here are two anecdotal accounts in honor of the Dreidecker.

23.4.1918

We hoped to establish our new aerodrome further forward, in this new country, but alas, we must remain in the wilderness.

The enemy has developed strength; everywhere there is lively flying activity shown by many squadrons. We fly our old machines as often as we can; we win victories and suffer losses. The English have new machines with which they can fly at great heights, unattainable to us. At five thousand metres our machines are un-certain swimmers and sideslip in their turns.

With envious eyes we see the Fokker triplanes of the Richthofen Staffels rise up playfully above us and haul their victims down from the heights. But we are in the air as often as we can manage it—for what else can we do!


Rudolph Stark – Wings of War

May 1918

At last we too are going to get better machines— Fokker Triplanes. It is true that they are discarded machines of Jagdgeschwader and therefore contain quite a lot of hidden snags, but that does not diminish our joy. Three of them have already turned up. There is great competition as to who is to fly them, and finally we let the dice decide who shall be the first and in what order the others shall have their turns.

At first we find these new machines a bit strange to fly. But they are extremely sensitive to the controls and rise up in the air like a lift. You climb a few hundred metres in the twinkling of a second and can then go round and round one spot like a top. The rotary engine takes some learning before you can manage it, and is rather a difficult business at first. But it is not long before we are all at home on them, and everyone wants to be flying a 'tripe' when an English bombing squadron comes across. But just at present the bombers are off the map and confine their activities to night shows.


Rudolph Stark – Wings of War


  • 1
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#4 MarcoRossolini

MarcoRossolini
  • Posts: 2991
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 04 November 2014 - 09:38

Bloody Dreidecker powergamers… 8-) :x
  • 0

#5 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3838
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 04 November 2014 - 14:11

Those Dr.1's better watch out once I get my Be12! :lol:
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

tahhfk.jpg


#6 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 04 November 2014 - 18:40

BvR was quoted saying he would rather the D7 (even WITHOUT the supercharger) rather than the DR1.

The DR1 was a flash in the pan… and did little to influence the war. The D7F was the a superior plane.

Many famous German aces died in the DR1 (Voss, BvR).

First the wings were snapping off, then in warm weather the motors simply would not run (no castor oil).

Just giving the balanced view….
  • 0

#7 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 04 November 2014 - 18:44

Those Dr.1's better watch out once I get my Be12! :lol:

it´s a great plane, but how are you gonna squeeze that big Berijew into the timemachine?!?


Image
  • 0

#8 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 04 November 2014 - 20:53

I love to fly the Dr.1 … so count me in !
  • 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


#9 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 November 2014 - 21:58

I love to fly the Dr.1 … so count me in !

Salute, Sahaj! :S!: Indeed the plane deserves our love!
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#10 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 04 November 2014 - 23:14

It's one of the two scouts that ruins RoF multiplayer. Hurray for the Dr.I in Rise of Flight! :roll:
  • 0

#11 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 04 November 2014 - 23:31

It's one of the two scouts that ruins RoF multiplayer. Hurray for the Dr.I in Rise of Flight! :roll:

nonsense, haters gonna hate gav.

Camels and Dr.1s give the best and most WWI unique duel experience there is in RoF.

… and finally, how can you speak of ruining multiplayer experience when …

1. You were never part of a RoF virtual squad.
2. You never took part in a more complex multiplayer event than a VM on sunday ?
3. Your judgement and conclusions are mainly based on your observations from Fastfood servers ?
  • 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


#12 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 November 2014 - 23:37

Regarding my doubt about the skin of the Dr.I 425/17, I found this colorized picture. It seems that it was the original painting of the plane, later on changed to the Balkan cross.

 

1M09lfy.jpg

 

Century Imaging, by Murray Robertson.


Alex Imrie in his book The Fokker Triplane (London 1992) says that this is Fokker Dr.I 425/17. He points out an inverted "V" blemish on the fabric underneath the cockpit where the fuselage dope came off (the blemish isn't visible in this colorized version of the photograph). Later in his book (photograph #116) is another view of this aircraft painted with Balkan (straight) crosses instead of the earlier Cross Patée of this photograph. Alex Imrie identifies the aircraft of photograph #116 as Fokker 425/17 in its final state of decoration.

http://www.thebicycl...uitarist.net/st … photos.htm


Edited by SeaW0lf, 02 July 2017 - 14:44.
0

  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#13 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 05 November 2014 - 03:38

It's one of the two scouts that ruins RoF multiplayer. Hurray for the Dr.I in Rise of Flight! :roll:

nonsense, haters gonna hate gav.

Camels and Dr.1s give the best and most WWI unique duel experience there is in RoF.

… and finally, how can you speak of ruining multiplayer experience when …

1. You were never part of a RoF virtual squad.
2. You never took part in a more complex multiplayer event than a VM on sunday ?
3. Your judgement and conclusions are mainly based on your observations from Fastfood servers ?


Haters? No.

The Camel had slightly less than 5500 planes built.
The DR1 was built to 320 examples.

The DR1 was NOTHING. Its legend FAR surpasses actual achievements.

Maybe if you read a book rather than played a game (where the DR1 is poorly modeled, to boot) you would understand why people dismiss the DR1 pilots.

Even GERMANY didn't like the planes.. the D7F was the better plane.

Wait.. I just remembered.. facts and logic… why should I even try.
  • 0

#14 Ghost_666

Ghost_666
  • Posts: 242

Posted 05 November 2014 - 03:50

… and finally, how can you speak of ruining multiplayer experience when …

1. You were never part of a RoF virtual squad.
2. You never took part in a more complex multiplayer event than a VM on sunday ?
3. Your judgement and conclusions are mainly based on your observations from Fastfood servers ?

:shock: Please don't set up standards of how to enjoy the game.
1)some don't have the time or a stable schedual to join a squad
2)it hard to take part in a event if you don't always have a reliable connection, and see 1 above
3)some may only time for a fastfood fight, and see 1 above

BTW I happen to love the Dr1, just wish it could catch better. I keep throwing lead at it, but it only catches some of it. :lol:
  • 0

Circling, Circling, in the sun.  Desperately trying to use my gun.  Up and down and around about.  Left and right I through my Scout.  When I had that Hun, on the run.  My little Newport she spun.  Down and down, with speed I went.  Into the ground, without wings I was sent.  In the mess the empty chair is set.  My flying time is spent.

 


#15 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 05 November 2014 - 03:54

Regarding my doubt about the skin of the Dr.I 425/17, I found this colorized picture. It seems that it was the original painting of the plane, later on changed to the Balkan cross.

Image

Century Imaging, by Murray Robertson.


Alex Imrie in his book The Fokker Triplane (London 1992) says that this is Fokker Dr.I 425/17. He points out an inverted "V" blemish on the fabric underneath the cockpit where the fuselage dope came off (the blemish isn't visible in this colorized version of the photograph). Later in his book (photograph #116) is another view of this aircraft painted with Balkan (straight) crosses instead of the earlier Cross Patée of this photograph. Alex Imrie identifies the aircraft of photograph #116 as Fokker 425/17 in its final state of decoration.

http://www.thebicycl...colorphotos.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thebicycl...uitarist.net/st … photos.htm


There is absolutely NO WAY you can hold up a colorized (ie someone GUESSED at the proper color used in a B&W photo) and say 'just like this'.

There is absolutely NO COLOR DATA AT ALL in a B&W photo. So some random guy picking a kinda close-ish color and using the 'fill' tool in a paint program really means absolutely nothing.

Do people really not know this stuff?

Also the link you provided as the source… the 'author' makes HUGE errors and while he says he is a life long student of the DR1… really knows nothing about them:

"2. The Fokker triplane was the first airplane to enter service with wooden cantilever wings."

No, the PROTOTYPE planes did not have bracing… but the production models did. 'Entered service' means production.

" 2. Tripes withdrawn from service in summer

a.) engine troubles "

The engines were fine. Germany has no internal supply of CASTOR OIL. So they brewed up some ersatz oil that never worked. So the reason the DR1 engines failed was because they didn't have proper oil. This is not a design issue, or a production issue… but a 'crap we don't have any oil… pour whatever is laying around in it' issue.

To which the the author actually redeems himself:

" b). shortage of quality lubricant

i.) Castor oil required, not native to Germany

ii.) German synthetic substitute left much to be desired "

Then then this turd:

To sum up the triplane in the words of the Red Baron, they “climb like monkeys and are maneuverable as the devil.”

BvR did not like the DR1. It had some good qualities, but he was anxious to get rid of his own DR1 and like I have posted… he wished for a FASTER aircraft.

But the people who read wiki are gonna claim the 171 operational (that's it… 171 Dr1 in all of Germany) were mowing down Allied fighters… nothing could be further from the truth.
  • 0

#16 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 November 2014 - 05:14

BTW I happen to love the Dr1, just wish it could catch better. I keep throwing lead at it, but it only catches some of it. :lol:

I think every plane has its Achilles heel. In time you will find your soft spot to down a Dr.I.
Just careful to not bite more than you can chew though!
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#17 Thaatu

Thaatu
  • Posts: 740

Posted 05 November 2014 - 09:47

kimmy_yeager, Jesus, what's with the rant? Who said Dr.1 is better than D.VIIF? The reason it is used so much in MP is that it is considered easier to counter Camels by turnfighting in a Dr.1 than boom and zooming in a D.VIIF, partly because the latter tactic is harder by default. It's not a comparison between the two German planes. Your criticism of the article doesn't really hold up. Huge errors, with caps? The first point is an error in a minor detail, the second is semantics at best (engine trouble caused by poor lubricant is not engine trouble..?) and the third is a non-error. Richthofen really did say so, so it's a strecth to call it a "turd".
  • 0

#18 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4122
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:15

BvR was quoted saying he would rather the D7 (even WITHOUT the supercharger) rather than the DR1.

The DR1 was a flash in the pan… and did little to influence the war. The D7F was the a superior plane.

Many famous German aces died in the DR1 (Voss, BvR).

First the wings were snapping off, then in warm weather the motors simply would not run (no castor oil).

Just giving the balanced view….

Joseph Jacobs would disagree with every point of what you said… and he was second *surviving* German ace. Of German pilots who beat his score, Lowenheardt got himself killed in D.VII, Udet survived flying D.VII only because he had working parachute and only MvR died in Dr.I. Both MvR and Voss died due to error in judgement, anyway.

Dr.I was "ace custom" to D.VII's "noobs best friend", yes, and it was deployed mainly to Jagdgeschwaders, but both was matter of design and policy. It was the only German scout clearly superior to Albatros D.Va (if not D.III) that appeared in June 1917-May 1918 period. When it was assigned to squadron, even worn planes handed down from JGs, they were abandoning their Albatroses for it without second thought because it was best thing available.

But these are facta I'm sure you know already. I dare you, play a German career from 1916 on in B-career, one sortie per day, starting on Albatros D.II. Log some 400+ sorties in Albatros variants and see your reaction when your unit gets some Dr.Is. I assure you, later switch from Dr.I to D.VII is much less spectacular. Along with E.III, D.VIII and Halberstadt D.II (and D.XII to extent) , Dr.I is one of more interesting German planes to fly, from players perspective.

I don't care for it that much in MP (more than Camel which I refuse to touch, but still), but it's one of more characterful toys in this game and I keep a Dr.I career open so I can always fly it when I fancy so (same applies to many other planes, like listed above, Gotha / HP, S.E.5a, Brandemburg, Bristfit or Cl.II).
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#19 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5600
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 November 2014 - 13:34

BvR was quoted saying he would rather the D7 (even WITHOUT the supercharger) rather than the DR1.
Please give reference of quote, of any DVII with a supercharger.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#20 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 05 November 2014 - 14:52

The quote in is Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No 40) Paperback – August 25, 2001

In the chapter were they discuss the wings snapping off.

And if I am wrong.. so what. The D7F is a superior plane to the DR1 and RoF is does nothing to put it in a historical context.

At no time where there more than 171 active DR1s (not flying, just assigned to units).

Both Richthoevens got shot down in one (Lothar survived, the Baron not so much).

Saying the DR1 is a the greatest plane of WWI is just wrong… and using a game to try to convince themselves its true.
  • 0

#21 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 05 November 2014 - 15:09

This discussion about an 'air pump'

There was no special designation on the D.VII for these engines.
Clues for identification the various engines.
D.III, The air pump was mounted between the last cylinder and the cam shaft tower.
D.IIIa tall skinny air pump mounted in front of no1 cylinder.
D.IIIau fat air pump mount in front of no 1 cylinder.
D.IIIauv two cylinder air pump in front of no 1 cylinder and water jacketed intake manifolds.
  • 0

#22 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5600
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 November 2014 - 15:16

What does "air-pumps" have to do about DR1s ?
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#23 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 November 2014 - 15:40

There is absolutely NO WAY you can hold up a colorized (ie someone GUESSED at the proper color used in a B&W photo) and say 'just like this'.

There is absolutely NO COLOR DATA AT ALL in a B&W photo. So some random guy picking a kinda close-ish color and using the 'fill' tool in a paint program really means absolutely nothing.

Do people really not know this stuff?

Also the link you provided as the source… the 'author' makes HUGE errors and while he says he is a life long student of the DR1… really knows nothing about them:

"2. The Fokker triplane was the first airplane to enter service with wooden cantilever wings."

No, the PROTOTYPE planes did not have bracing… but the production models did. 'Entered service' means production.

" 2. Tripes withdrawn from service in summer

a.) engine troubles "

The engines were fine. Germany has no internal supply of CASTOR OIL. So they brewed up some ersatz oil that never worked. So the reason the DR1 engines failed was because they didn't have proper oil. This is not a design issue, or a production issue… but a 'crap we don't have any oil… pour whatever is laying around in it' issue.

To which the the author actually redeems himself:

" b). shortage of quality lubricant

i.) Castor oil required, not native to Germany

ii.) German synthetic substitute left much to be desired "

Then then this turd:

To sum up the triplane in the words of the Red Baron, they “climb like monkeys and are maneuverable as the devil.”

BvR did not like the DR1. It had some good qualities, but he was anxious to get rid of his own DR1 and like I have posted… he wished for a FASTER aircraft.

But the people who read wiki are gonna claim the 171 operational (that's it… 171 Dr1 in all of Germany) were mowing down Allied fighters… nothing could be further from the truth.


First of all, my quoted text is data from Alex Imrie and I posted the link to the site in respect of the colorized work that seemed to be a personal request / gift. I don't know why have the trouble to go over his other stuff and spend time with refutes. This has nothing to do with the post. This is totally out of context.

And the doubt in question was not the shades of red on the plane, but obviously the cross that seemed different from the other representations. Again, "according to Imrie", the more known version with the Balkan cross was a later painting. This not only apparently solved the question but was interesting to know that the know version of his plane was an over painting, that's all.

And please, be respectful to others in this thread and don't flame things with:

"Maybe if you read a book rather than played a game."
"Do people really not know this stuff?"
"you really need to learn english."
"Wait.. I just remembered.. facts and logic… why should I even try."


These are derogatory remarks, some of them personal and offensive, and this in only a short span of two pages. It really stands out. Please, you don't need that. I make a request that you edit your posts and remove the aforementioned remarks, especially the first three.

Other than that, let's enjoy the day, because I woke up today with a bluebird sky.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#24 Speckled_Jim

Speckled_Jim
  • Posts: 387
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 05 November 2014 - 15:56

Saying the DR1 is a the greatest plane of WWI is just wrong… and using a game to try to convince themselves its true.

Are you saying the DR1 is the greatest plane in ROF? Because personally, while flying online, I'd far rather
be in a D7F or a Spad13 myself. Even on a Fast Food style server. I find it much safer. I may get shot down
from the occasional lucky snipe, but mostly if I'm careful, the worst I can expect is a stalemate. You
can keep your funny epileptic fit of a plane. They are not for me thanks.
  • 0

#25 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6337
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 05 November 2014 - 16:22

Saying the DR1 is a the greatest plane of WWI is just wrong…

That is probably why absolutely no one has said that it's the greatest plane of WW1.

The only reason you think that RoF makes it look like the greatest plane of WW1 is because you're really bad at playing this game.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#26 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 05 November 2014 - 21:16

What does "air-pumps" have to do about DR1s ?

My quote Re: BvR saying he would gladly give up the DR1 for a lesser plane and you stating that no D7F had a supercharger.

The DR1 is much to easy to fly IN GAME. The Camel is a much more difficult plane IN GAME.. and the DR1 was historically a big nothing.

There were 171 in service at the height of deployment (note not all of those would be functional.. just assigned to a squad).

If the DR1 was taken out of RoF THAT would be more accurate a representation than having them on 90% of every MP map.

I'm out.. DR1 pilots are deluding themselves that the DR1 was relevant and the only reason they play one in game is that they are nerfed and can kill most allies AC with little effort.
  • 0

#27 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5600
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 November 2014 - 21:35

kimmy Please quote me where I said DVIIfs had no supercharger.

SeaW0lf sorry for trashing your thread, but I think kimmy has lost his mind.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#28 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 November 2014 - 21:48

kimmy Please quote me where I said DVIIfs had no supercharger.

SeaW0lf sorry for trashing your thread, but I think kimmy has lost his mind.

No problem :D
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#29 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 05 November 2014 - 22:13

I´m sorry, but this thread needs more SPAD. A real whole whopin healthy dose of Spad.


  • 0

#30 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 November 2014 - 22:26

Oh, they give me plenty of trouble when I am flying a Dr.I, Zebra!

I think Rudolph Stark mentioned once that the French were tricky, and I am pretty sure he meant the BZ style of the Spads.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#31 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 06 November 2014 - 00:04

the bomb and zoom? ooh yess.


  • 0

#32 Dr.Zebra

Dr.Zebra
  • Posts: 2663

Posted 06 November 2014 - 00:12

also relevant:


  • 0

#33 J2_Oelmann

J2_Oelmann
  • Posts: 292
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 November 2014 - 08:03

Was on New Wings Wargrounds recently. I played Entente to even out the teams. Either in a Se5 nor in a Spad 13 I feared the Dr1.

But I do like the plane because its so much fun to fly. I just suck at in it…
  • 0

#34 Speckled_Jim

Speckled_Jim
  • Posts: 387
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 06 November 2014 - 08:23

I love the "bomb and zoom" Doc. Impossible not to laugh.

That Spad skin is rather natty as well. Not seen it before.
  • 0

#35 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:47

This discussion about an 'air pump'

There was no special designation on the D.VII for these engines.
Clues for identification the various engines.
D.III, The air pump was mounted between the last cylinder and the cam shaft tower.
D.IIIa tall skinny air pump mounted in front of no1 cylinder.
D.IIIau fat air pump mount in front of no 1 cylinder.
D.IIIauv two cylinder air pump in front of no 1 cylinder and water jacketed intake manifolds.

As interssting as it is off-topic. A supercharger on those engines? They used "overcompression" but you can do that by the layout of the crankshaft.

I never heard of a blower monted to therse engines. I'd like to know more about it. Is there a source?

I like to know more about it as much as I like to shoot down Dr.I's in:

-DH4: Most favoured dish: large target, slow target, many wings fall off. Very rewarding.
-SPAD: Hardly a better feeling as when you stoot someone out to get cheap kills.
-HP/Gotha: Its his fault to try to come close anyway…
-Camel: That's what Camels are for, right? Silly using Camels for other puroses…
Dr.I: You own that dude.
N28: If you manage, that's cool!

I could go on like with 30 more planes or so.

:)

Z
  • 0

#36 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 06 November 2014 - 11:42

…Either in a Se5 nor in a Spad 13 I feared the Dr1…
No need to fear a Dr1, you just have to fly Entente [or German] aircraft to their strengths, and not let the Dr1 pilot [or a Camel, or a Pup…] dictate the fight. In other words, DO NOT TRY to turn fight a turn'n'burner.

Use speed to extend, gain altitude and return for boom'n'zoom. Dive out if you need to and ignore the Vorlanderism's "don't run SE5". Better yet, reply chat "don't turn Dr1…".

Regardless of how any of the RoF aircraft characteristics are over modelled, they are what we have so let's play with what we've got and enjoy it for what it is.
  • 0

#37 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2354
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 06 November 2014 - 15:21

Regardless of how any of the RoF aircraft characteristics are over modelled, they are what we have so let's play with what we've got and enjoy it for what it is.

The question is: it seems that the Dr.I is not over modeled roughly until 12.000. Even if it is, it might be marginal. So I don't know where that comes from. People simply hate it because unconsciously many people think of WWI as a turnfight duel, so they always try to scrape with Dr.I and Camels in inferior turnfighters. Not a good idea. Now, if you engage them in a DVIIF, things start to get fun again. But again, two Abatroses flown by good pilots are a headache.

They could tweak the altitude performance as a whole, likewise with the Tripehoud, that MVR considered inferior to the Dr.I, and relative performance in between planes, but even then both the Dreidecker and the Tripe had great altitude performance for their time and I think these anomalies are more related to the complexity of the flight model than their (devs) own lack of judgment.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#38 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 06 November 2014 - 15:46

"Use speed to extend, gain altitude and return for boom'n'zoom. Dive out if you need to and ignore the Vorlanderism's "don't run SE5". Better yet, reply chat "don't turn Dr1…".

Most MP maps you start on the ground while the enemy has a height advantage. More air starts would help, but initially the advantage is ALWAYS with the pilot in the air already. Only courtesy will allow you to get to say 1000m before an attack from above. Good luck with that.

Most people who want to play MP want at least a chance at a good fight. Unless there is something close to an equal footing I will just crash in as I want to have fun.. not be fodder for a plane that is overused because it is so easy to win in.

Plus what is the use of even having other planes when you must fly one of 3 or 4 planes to have a chance against the DR1/D7F combo? There is a reason why most of the MP planes were not front line fighters in 1918/1919… they were not able to win against the enemy. Yet we get poor choices online.

The old argument that you must BnZ the DR1 pigeon holes your choices even more.. SE5a or SPAD and then you still have a poor turn fighter when the D7F shows up.

No plane so completely ruins the balance of the game (and complete destroys is ACTUAL significance) then the DR1. Yes people here 'love it'. Of course.. it can wipe the sky clean of all enemy if even flown with MODERATE skills.

I wish there was a check box that would allow a player to ignore certain planes.. don;t even render them. But the facts are that most people will not even join an MP game without a DR1 or Camel in the mix as that is the only way they can win…. with the best plane IN THE GAME (note I did not say the best plane.. but IN THE GAME).

Its not just me that has this opinion.
  • 0

#39 Pirato

Pirato
  • Posts: 1587
  • LocationUnder a Bridge

Posted 06 November 2014 - 16:09

I wish the DR1 in general would finaly get some adjustments. Spin recovery,no problem just center the controls and it gets out by itself , missing upper wings?…no problem for the Dr1 still flys on. My intention is not to bash the Dr1 in general,some things are just way off. Some say it's hard to control,but soften out the response curves and if the server allows it reduce the fuelload it's not that hard anymore.
I'm not afraid of meeting Dr1's,only thing I'm afraid of is their prophanging shots,thats the only danger when trying to extend in a climb after the inital diving attack without crippling the Plane or the Pilot.
  • 0

Dann gibt's Heulen und Zähne klammern, für das ganze Lumpenpack.
Dann ist Schluss mit "Tischlein deck' dich", da gibt's "Knüppel aus dem Sack"!


#40 Speckled_Jim

Speckled_Jim
  • Posts: 387
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 06 November 2014 - 16:34

Most MP maps you start on the ground while the enemy has a height advantage. More air starts would help, but initially the advantage is ALWAYS with the pilot in the air already. Only courtesy will allow you to get to say 1000m before an attack from above. Good luck with that.

Not really sure that that's got anything to do with the DR1 though. If the enemy is a good shot and has an
alt advantage when you're flopping about at take-off speed you're in trouble whatever plane he happens to be flying. Use another airfield.

Most people who want to play MP want at least a chance at a good fight. Unless there is something close to an equal footing I will just crash in as I want to have fun.. not be fodder for a plane that is overused because it is so easy to win in.

But the normal rules still apply. If you have an altitude advantage you can have a go at attacking. If you haven't then you need to get out of there before the enemy is close enough to be a problem. If he's faster than you head towards your team mates to get help. If he's closer than your team mates then you only have yourself to blame.

If you want to unwisely tangle with a DR1 at co-alt then fly a Camel or Pup.

There are many people on Aces falling who are quite happy to fly about in Albies. So why do
you imagine they choose to do that?

Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the DR1 or any other flight model. I wouldn't presume to know
about such things. I just think it's unlikely they'll be changed so there's not much point
moaning about it.

To say you have no chance against one though seems a bit silly to me. Particularly when the
situations you describe are tactically suicidal.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users