Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

The Fokker Dr1 FM Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#121 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 31 March 2017 - 05:39

5 miles is a bit less than 10km, yet there's a whole long discussion going on over on the BoS/BoM forums about how even a 10km view/rendering distance isn't nearly good enough:

 

https://forum.il2stu...nce#entry292593

 

Seems to be a wide disparity of opinion about how far one should be able to spot aircraft.

This calculator should give some "perspective" :D on the subject. ;) https://sizecalc.com/


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#122 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:36

At six statute miles there's no frickin' way you'd ID a plane as small as a 152 or 172 unless it's really, really weird looking to have no doubt as to it's identity.


  • 0

#123 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16192

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:35

At six statute miles there's no frickin' way you'd ID a plane as small as a 152 or 172 unless it's really, really weird looking to have no doubt as to it's identity.

 

Well, for some reason we've slipped from talking about being able to spot them to being able to ID them - obviously two very different things.


  • 0

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online:


#124 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:39

Well, for some reason we've slipped from talking about being able to spot them to being able to ID them - obviously two very different things.

True, but related, and identifying as friend or foe is the game.   


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#125 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16192

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:59

True, but related, and identifying as friend or foe is the game.   

 

Well, at some point yes, but you certainly can't ID them if you can't see them (in these time periods, anyway), so the main focus of the view/rendering distance discussions so far has been on merely being able to spot them in the first place.


  • 0

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online:


#126 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 31 March 2017 - 13:10

Real life vs computer screen, a airplane the size of a Alby D.Va at 10km rendered on a 1080p screen would be less than one pixel.

And in real life it would appear to be the size of a pin-point.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#127 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 31 March 2017 - 13:16

It's a long way to spot aircraft. A plane the size of a 747 is visible at that distance but VERY small.


I have picked up 707/747s visually at 15-20 miles. Normally, I can see them about 10-12. It is heavily dependent upon aspect angle. At 0 or 180, most every plane is MUCH more difficult and cuts maximum distance by 60-70%.

In a Fokker, without a windscreen, I have a very difficult time seeing planes at about 5 miles.

WW2 is a little different because you have a full canopy. I rarely miss a plane inside of 3 miles and often see them in the 5-10 mile range. A P-51 size airplane is really quite large! More than double the size of a Fokker.

1 mile equals approximately 1.609 km
  • 1

#128 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1583
  • LocationTrudolyubiye

Posted 31 March 2017 - 15:55

This topic was alluded to recently in another thread and had prompted me to do a test with Quick mission.  I set up an Se5 out at 4000 meters:  It was visible on my screen as 1 pixel, at my standard zoom level.  I didn't try longer distances, so I don't know how far out it really goes.  I could only see it because it was against the sky, with no background clutter obviously.  And yes, if I zoomed in all the way, I could identify it as an Se5.

 

I haven't read the BoS thread on the topic.  It doesn't seem to me that a contrail-less BF-109 sized aircraft become visible as far out as 10k, but then again, I haven't really measured it.  Probably seems closer than that because merges happen so much faster there than in RoF.  If that's what they made the draw distance, then that's what they made the draw distance. 

 

It's been decades since I read Yeager's autobiography, but I think he talks about his eyes being so exceptional that he was able to see his wingman as a dot in the sky at a distance that was like 30 miles, which is obviously way beyond what a normal person could see.  Maybe I'm wrong, because like I said, haven't read the book in years and I don't have a copy, but maybe if somebody does they can verify the story as recounted.


  • 0

#129 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1756

Posted 31 March 2017 - 17:45

Well, for sake of apples to apples comparison, 4000 meters is only ~ 2.5 miles...  So, that distance is *quite* near (relatively speaking) in RL.

 

If you're flying Cessnas into a G.A. airport, you'd typically set up your traffic pattern for a 1 - 2 mile final, but depending on traffic, and aircraft performance, it can be even larger (3+ miles), and I'd wager that anyone who has significant RL light aircraft flying experience would likely agree that inside of that distance, not only can you see the other aircraft in the pattern, you can also usually ID them as well (at least in terms of type).

 

In terms of just spotting other aircraft, I'd also agree with Chill's estimates as being pretty typical overall, and substantially further away than a couple miles.

 

So, in that regard, in flight sims, it's generally much more difficult to spot planes than it usually is in RL, and it's why most of them have zoom functionality -- a PC depiction just isn't as good as the trained human eyeball.   Mind you, in both environments, spotting planes IS a skill, and it takes plenty of practice.

 

In many of the WWII cases, obviously, those guys had very good eyesight, but also, it helped a lot to know where to look, and of course, the altitudes were a lot higher, and the planes were metal (and larger than our kites), and would flash in the sunlight.  Further, they were often in gaggles (rather than loners), so all those things would help...  Still, impressive all the same, and there were definitely plenty of stories about certain guys who would consistently spot enemy a/c before anyone else in their flight would see them, even while they were still quite distant.

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#130 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1583
  • LocationTrudolyubiye

Posted 31 March 2017 - 18:50

I have almost zero skill estimating distances, but if you measure the size of things through like a 100 mil diameter aerial gunsight, like a Revi, a 10 meter large object will obviously be 10 mils wide at 1000 meters, right...so at 5000 meters, it will be 2 mils.  That's like 0.1 degrees of arc.  The width of your thumb at arms length is about 2 degrees.  So a 10m wide object at 5000 meters is pretty darned small, visually, and a world war 1 aircraft is typically even smaller than that in all dimensions.   I think that in real life that would appear to most people as a "speck", not something "quite near" as Fourspeed categorizes it, but maybe I'm underestimating the resolution of a typical eyeball.   I guess I can imagine someone with very good eyesight being able to *sometimes* see a Focke-Wulf sized airplane as a little dot in the sky at 10,000 meters (~6 miles)  if they were looking in exactly the right place during a clear day and the proper lighting to provide contrast, but any farther than that, then I think you are getting into something really exceptional, like either Yeager, or the Bionic Man. 


  • 0

#131 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 31 March 2017 - 19:43

Two screen shots of size of objects at given distance.

First is 1/16 th inch at 1 foot.

Attached File  size 1.JPG   32.85KB   0 downloads

 

Next is a 24 foot object,( same length as  a Alby D. Va) at 1404.516906 meters.

Attached File  size 2.JPG   41.21KB   0 downloads

 

Now if viewed at the same time they would appear to be the same size,( notice the perceived size)


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#132 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 04 April 2017 - 19:50

Spotting in RL I find WAY harder than on the computer screen. In RL, we have to train ourselves to have a resting focus set at infinite. In order to Adjust to that you have to be outside a lot, looking at the far horizon. That is exatly NOT us peeps gazing at a computer screen an arms lenght away. On the screen (clean off the snot), contrast and a fast response time (your dot is smearing otherwhise, losing contrast) matter.

My experince is that when I'm up in the air with people that don't have a lot of real airtime, they usually only spot an aircraft when you are almost colliding with them. Once aquired, they can track the plane over a great distance (fair vision and athmosphere permitting).

Spoting has nothing to do with your vision to be clear enough to detect the aircraft. Only a couple degrees off center even Chuck Yeagers eyesight is poor. You not only need to set your resting focus right, you have to maintain an organized search pattern over the sky for efficient scanning.

The maximum spotting distance also depends on plane angle versus yourself as well as the background. Spotting against clear blue sky is easy indeed, you can even track over huge distances. 20 km range for big airliners is possible. Now try that with a planr approacing you head on with mountains in the background. We can spot moving objects very well, even with blurry periphreal vision. But a plane that appraches you head on lacks the revealing side movement. Aircraft running into each other are a sad and frequent event. Collision warners are becoming more and more frequent for a good reason.

I spent too many days in the military spoting and tracking aircraft for training with the MANPADS. It was always very instructive how different spotting and tracking abilities were amongst us bomb-fodder. If you can spot low flying aircraft reliably in fair conditions over a range of 2.5 km, consider yourself way above average.
  • 0

#133 Zooropa_Fly

Zooropa_Fly
  • Posts: 1338

Posted 06 April 2017 - 08:27

The human eye cannot 'focus', it just looks in different places.

It's the brain that we focus with !

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

".. and they'll send you home in a pine overcoat, with a letter to your Mum,

    Saying find enclosed one son one medal and a note, to, say, he, Won".


#134 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 06 April 2017 - 12:16

The human eye cannot 'focus', it just looks in different places.

It's the brain that we focus with !

 

:icon_e_salute:

How does one say "CAN of WORMS"  :P


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#135 Zooropa_Fly

Zooropa_Fly
  • Posts: 1338

Posted 06 April 2017 - 12:27

What, me, can of worms ?

 

I am of course technically a little off with statement above.

What it should say is that the eye can only focus on one place at a time.

It cannot re-focus without physically moving to 'look' at something else.

 

S!


  • 0

".. and they'll send you home in a pine overcoat, with a letter to your Mum,

    Saying find enclosed one son one medal and a note, to, say, he, Won".


#136 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 06 April 2017 - 12:40

What, me, can of worms ?

Take this, may it serve you well.  ;)

Attached File  king_can_opener.jpg   57.48KB   0 downloads


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#137 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1756

Posted 06 April 2017 - 17:15

Spotting in RL I find WAY harder than on the computer screen. In RL, we have to train ourselves to have a resting focus set at infinite. In order to Adjust to that you have to be outside a lot, looking at the far horizon. That is exatly NOT us peeps gazing at a computer screen an arms lenght away. On the screen (clean off the snot), contrast and a fast response time (your dot is smearing otherwhise, losing contrast) matter.
 

True -- but that IS exactly what pilots are trained / trying to do when they keep their gaze outside the cockpit

 

My experince is that when I'm up in the air with people that don't have a lot of real airtime, they usually only spot an aircraft when you are almost colliding with them. Once aquired, they can track the plane over a great distance (fair vision and athmosphere permitting).

Spoting has nothing to do with your vision to be clear enough to detect the aircraft. Only a couple degrees off center even Chuck Yeagers eyesight is poor. You not only need to set your resting focus right, you have to maintain an organized search pattern over the sky for efficient scanning.

The maximum spotting distance also depends on plane angle versus yourself as well as the background. Spotting against clear blue sky is easy indeed, you can even track over huge distances. 20 km range for big airliners is possible. Now try that with a planr approacing you head on with mountains in the background. We can spot moving objects very well, even with blurry periphreal vision. But a plane that appraches you head on lacks the revealing side movement. Aircraft running into each other are a sad and frequent event. Collision warners are becoming more and more frequent for a good reason.

I spent too many days in the military spoting and tracking aircraft for training with the MANPADS. It was always very instructive how different spotting and tracking abilities were amongst us bomb-fodder. If you can spot low flying aircraft reliably in fair conditions over a range of 2.5 km, consider yourself way above average.

 

Certainly, there is a LOT of variability between different people, or even the same guy in different situations. The various factors you mention definitely all play a role, and I also agree that a large factor in spotting is knowing how and where to look.  However, it is definitely possible to see (even small planes) from 3-5 miles away -- I watch the traffic pattern at the local airport from my porch oftentimes (it's about 3 miles from my house according to Google Maps), and it's easy to tell a high wing Cessna from a low wing Piper at that distance, although I can't tell whether it's a 152 or a 172, or an Archer or an Arrow from there. As mentioned earlier, the same is also true from inside the cockpit, although, obviously it's more challenging there.  It's true that you can easily miss seeing them entirely, if you're busy focusing inside on gauges, or your view angle is obstructed, etc.  Also, at 100 mph, planes will travel ~150 ft every second, so it's also easy to lose track of them, even if you did see them briefly.  If you're moving towards each other, that can be 300 ft/s (or more depending on the planes), so the situation can change very rapidly, and sadly, that means mid-air collisions are still a reality that happens much more often than we like to think about. I also agree that experience (hours in the flying environment) are a significant factor in helping spot other planes (in RL). I'm not sure that it translates well to the PC though. For me, I've found it easier to spot them in RL than in the game (although even there, it does improve with experience).

However, that's a different thing entirely than not being (physically) able to see them at all (which is what happens in video games outside an arbitrary draw distance).

 

 

What, me, can of worms ?

 

I am of course technically a little off with statement above.

What it should say is that the eye can only focus on one place at a time.

It cannot re-focus without physically moving to 'look' at something else.

 

S!

 

Technically, you can only focus your *attention* on one (relatively small) area at a time.  Your eye, however doesn't go out of focus when you're not paying attention to that area. It's not like a camera, where the frame / picture goes blurry outside the area of focus.  You can easily test this while seated. if you're looking at your monitor, the desk, lamp, wall pictures, etc. that you can see with your peripheral vision aren't optically blurry - you can still see the defined edges and lines, and you can even be aware that there is detail to them. Also, as soon as your *attention* changes, there's no lag in optical focal clarity, like you'd have with a different sort of lens (ie. camera, binoculars or telescope). The eye's lenses are much, much better than those other lenses at producing optically sharp images regardless of distance or angle (assuming healthy eyes, of course).

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:

 

 

PS> A Cessna 152 is almost the same size as an Albatros DVa

C152:  Length: 24'1" Height: 8' 6"    Span: 33' 4"

DVa:    Length: 24'1" Height: 8' 10"  Span: 29' 8"


  • 0

#138 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 06 April 2017 - 20:01

The human eye cannot 'focus', it just looks in different places.

It's the brain that we focus with !

 

:icon_e_salute:

The human eye most certainly can focus. It has a lens. the lens is there to make a focus. Plus a muscle to adjust the lens, making a focus for the respective distance. Training your cilary muscle is what you do by getting used to focus to the infinite. It (and the brain parts that control it) has to learn the right tension required for the propper focus.

 

If you lose your ability to focus (eye cateract operation for instance back then) you require thick glasses.

 

But you are right, it is just a projection, and we only see clear in the very center of the vision. The image is made in the brain, not just by optical input, but also from previous impressions and memory.


  • 0

#139 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 06 April 2017 - 20:22

[...] I watch the traffic pattern at the local airport from my porch oftentimes (it's about 3 miles from my house according to Google Maps), and it's easy to tell a high wing Cessna from a low wing Piper at that distance, although I can't tell whether it's a 152 or a 172, or an Archer or an Arrow from there[...]

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:

 

 

PS> A Cessna 152 is almost the same size as an Albatros DVa

C152:  Length: 24'1" Height: 8' 6"    Span: 33' 4"

DVa:    Length: 24'1" Height: 8' 10"  Span: 29' 8"

 

Often, you can guess where you will see aircraft. Airports are one place. But even there aircraft run into each other. Even in the pattern.

 

Spoting is something you have to take serous to be good at. Not everyone does that. But spotting a single aircraft far away in the blue sky is one thing. But many? Example:

 

Morning mayhem when you go thermal soaring. All the nervous ones get towed to the same, first thermal on the same hill. Winding up that one with another dozen sailplanes and you spot only 11 of them (they kinda all look the same), No.12 will be the one cutting off your tail with his wing. One should grease his neck first before such exercises...


  • 0

#140 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 23 August 2017 - 19:36

Just perused the lopsided matchups thread, and noticed people have a vast misunderstanding about aerodynamics, and my DR1.  

 

My Dr1, off of which the FM in this thread is based, is a replica that matches the real Dr1 very closely.  Indeed, it is not an exact copy.  However, aerodynamically speaking, it is a Fokker Dr1.  The wing, is a Fokker wing. The fuselage is within 1/4 inch of the original's dimensions.  My understanding is that the guy who made the plans converted mm to in for ease of building in the states.  Also, the fuselage doesn't have telescoped steel tubing going to the tail.  The result is that it is has a slightly further aft center of gravity than the original.  The landing gear is probably the most significant departure from the original, and the only part of which I am aware that makes it "easier" than the original.  The landing gear are slightly shorter and further aft than the original.  How much?  I've only seen speculation of 3-6 inches.  

 

As to the engine, mine is powered by a flat 4 instead of a rotary.  What this means for the plane is that I lose the gyroscopic effects of a rotary, which I am told by people who have flown the Dr1 with a LeRhone, is not significant.  Then there is a small drag different between the two engines frontal area.  I suppose people who don't understand how all of this fits together will say "It's not a real Dr1", but I assure you, it is aerodynamically a Fokker Dr1, and I am dealing with the same forces, minus gyroscopic, that M. Carlson deals with in his. 

 

That being said, the vast majority of ROF FMs do not have enough pronounced effects of adverse yaw.  In WWI, there was neither a real understanding of that phenomenon nor was there a solution.  Now that I am flying my Fokker more, I may reattack this FM to finish it completely.  One of the things that NeoQB/777 does on the FMs is enter the lift coefficient directly from the airfoil section charts.  For WW2 fighters, this is probably a close approximation, on WW1 fighters with two or three wings, this doesn't provide you with an accurate representation of the lifting forces.  

 

FWIW, polishing would help.  And grandstanding...perhaps.  Because 777 will likely never open it up, but I keep hoping!  In the mean time, it seems we might be able to put together people who are interested in making a series of mods for FSX.  Any takers??


  • 2

#141 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:07

Dear Chill, 

 

I have never dabbled in FSX. there will be others... 

 

Could you do a bit of a write up on what a novice would need and need to know. 

 

Q: Does FSX support freetrack or open track? 

 

Q: Where does one start "modding" FSX? 

 

For my part I personally would like to help but maybe in a more "testing" type of capacity, i.e to give feed back and opinions. 

If I was intrigued by the whole thingI might be enticed to delve deeper... but at the moment I am dividing my time.... so I am cautious. 

 

I could do small things like holding the lamp or passing tools. and then some furious barnstorming to feel out the FM. 

 

Salute! 

 

Planky.  ( Galvanised by fear I decided to set out on my ski's to the first arms cache and wait for the others.) 


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 


#142 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 31 August 2017 - 15:57

I figure if anyone in the world could appreciate this article about the Sopwith Camel, this crowd could....

 

http://www.flyingmag...d-sopwith-camel


  • 0

#143 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1756

Posted 31 August 2017 - 17:39

Interesting read - thx for sharing it, Chill...

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:

 

 

PS> It might have been even more interesting if they'd shared links to the data / graphs...


  • 0

#144 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 01 September 2017 - 13:43

Thanks for the link, yes data would be interesting. I hope to see the shuttle worth collection camel reproduction make its debut on sunday
  • 0

#145 US103_Baer

US103_Baer
  • Posts: 481

Posted 01 September 2017 - 17:37

Faster turn and roll to the left?
In ROF, i see Dr1s and camels pirouette to the right like magic, but neither seem to like the left
  • 0

BxlHM7Q.png                  HaO2aNP.png

 


#146 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 03 September 2017 - 21:44

Unfortunatley, the camel didnt fly as it was too windy. Dodge bailey gave a talk about the plane and I could not hear much due to the wind. I ascertained that he didn't like it and much preferred the SE5a.
  • 0

#147 Arty_Effem

Arty_Effem
  • Member
  • Posts: 852
  • LocationR E S I G N E D 13/6/2018 veryuseful.info/rof

Posted 04 September 2017 - 15:18



I figure if anyone in the world could appreciate this article about the Sopwith Camel, this crowd could....

 

http://www.flyingmag...d-sopwith-camel

 

From above article:

 

One of the legends clinging to the Sopwith Camel is that it was so reluctant to turn 90 degrees to the right that pilots preferred making a 270 to the left.

 

 

Wikipedia:

 

The Camel turned more slowly to the left, which resulted in a nose-up attitude due to the torque of the rotary engine, but the torque also resulted in being able to turn to the right quicker than other fighters,[16] although that resulted in a tendency towards a nose-down attitude from the turn. Because of the faster turning capability to the right, some pilots preferred to change heading 90° to the left by turning 270° to the right.

 

 

I think I know the cause of the confusion, but some may be left wondering which is right.


  • 0

#148 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4151
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 04 September 2017 - 19:19

 Because of the faster turning capability to the right, some pilots preferred to change heading 90° to the left by turning 270° to the right.

 

 

Emphasis mine :). I suspect most of these "some" were RFC rather than RNAS...


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#149 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 18 September 2017 - 12:11

Here is another cool video on the workings of the "Spandau" LMG08/15

 


  • 1

#150 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 18 September 2017 - 14:08

"A more typical rate of fire was 400 to 450"  Not in ROF :icon_e_deadman:


  • 0

#151 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 18 September 2017 - 21:45

"A more typical rate of fire was 400 to 450"  Not in ROF :icon_e_deadman:

Too low or too high in ROF?


  • 0

#152 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16192

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:58

"A more typical rate of fire was 400 to 450"  Not in ROF :icon_e_deadman:

 

Well, not unless you use the cool rate of fire by time period mods that Bucksnort made available (based on initial work by gavagai, IIRC) - links for them are listed on my favorite mods page, here:  https://riseofflight...-favorite-mods/

 

 

You can check out this thread for details/discussion:  https://riseofflight...-rate-fire-mod/


  • 0

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online:


#153 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:42

Too low or too high in ROF?

ROF has 650 rpm for the Spandau, so it is way too high in game.  Clothe belts limited the reliable rate of fire in German aircraft all the way to the end of the war.  The Vickers on the other hand later in the war had a muzzle booster and used metallic belt links that allowed for 800 rpm in aircraft guns.   


  • 0

#154 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 23 September 2017 - 20:31

Today I had the pleasure of flying 239/17 on the 100th anniversary of Voss' last dogfight. I even had a willing Arial opponent...the photo plane.

I got on its tail and at a distance where the wings were just wider than my front sight, it was very tough to aim. The rudder is so sensitive that I had trouble in keeping it aimed more precisely than half a wingspan of a J-3 cub.

Approaching 50 yards or less, a hit would have been a much more likely prospect.

I found myself hunched toward the gunsight to aim, much as it is described that Richthofen did in his pursuit of May on his last flight. Trying to aim precisely at the people, a bit of spraying would probably have left them feeling a bit like Swiss cheese.

I can assure you, there is a rush when you dive in on another plane in a design more than 100 years old. Too cool!

Videos to follow soon.
  • 1

#155 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:57

A video for anyone interested

 


  • 2

#156 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:40

I am interested!

 

The witness twitchyness! 

 

Sigh. We need that. If planes had that edgy unstableness that gives them their manoeuvrability... people would be crying and only hard core types would persevere. : - )

 

That constant correcting. So taxing and yet once you get the hang of it.... naturally unstable and supremely agile.

 

Gosh.

My first thoughts were: if the plane is so twitchy just flying level what the darn heck is a snap roll going to be like? Super hecking amazing?

 

Salute!

 

Plank. ( gosh, wow and heck.)


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 


#157 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 18 October 2017 - 00:37

Well, I just bought an 80 Hp Le Rhone engine for the Dr1...the plane needs some mods to be able to mount the engine, so it will be a while before she flies with it.  One step at a time!

Attached Files


  • 5

#158 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 18 October 2017 - 03:26

Very cool. 


  • 0

#159 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1756

Posted 18 October 2017 - 16:45

Well, I just bought an 80 Hp Le Rhone engine for the Dr1...the plane needs some mods to be able to mount the engine, so it will be a while before she flies with it.  One step at a time!

 

Nice.

 

It will be interesting to see how (or if) the flight characteristics change when you get it installed.

 

 

Regards,

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#160 Arty_Effem

Arty_Effem
  • Member
  • Posts: 852
  • LocationR E S I G N E D 13/6/2018 veryuseful.info/rof

Posted 18 October 2017 - 17:33

Well, I just bought an 80 Hp Le Rhone engine for the Dr1...the plane needs some mods to be able to mount the engine, so it will be a while before she flies with it.  One step at a time!

 

Are you qualified to do the work yourself or will you commission it? Either way I'm sure we'll all be relieved to know you survived enjoyed the result.


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users