Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Rise of Flight Max Speeds and Altitude Performance Chart - 2015


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 Old_Lobo

Old_Lobo
  • Posts: 21

Posted 03 July 2015 - 15:07

Fantastic job - thank you SeaW0lf :icon_e_salute:

 

 

Pyra


  • 0

#42 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 03 July 2015 - 15:13

But you have to be very careful when using this chart to make any historic statement or judgment. Many of the data are bogus. From what I read about the N17 (I did not go deep with it), it was in the same bracket as the Albatros D.III, Pfalz and Dr.I. Here in ROF it is placed behind the N11, which the latter is in the right place. The Aerodrome is a good place to start a research.
 
So, I would not bet my money on it. From what I see in real life data, the engines still are determinant for the scouts performance in most cases. It could not be otherwise. The N17 with an 110hp engine could never be slower than the N11 with an 80hp engine. 

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

#43 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 03 July 2015 - 15:16

Thanks Pyra!


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

#44 PilsnerPilot

PilsnerPilot
  • Posts: 128
  • LocationPilsen, Czech Republic

Posted 03 July 2015 - 15:26

Very interesting. Great job SeaW0lf. :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#45 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 03 July 2015 - 17:40

Thanks mate!


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

#46 roach303

roach303
  • Member
  • Posts: 2

Posted 04 July 2015 - 13:07

Very helpful for a noob learning his way around how the aircraft perform in game, thanks :)


  • 0

#47 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 04 July 2015 - 13:31

Is it me or is the F.2b missing from the airspeed charts?

 

Also, the curve for the Pfalz D.IIIa is definitely incorrect at 3km.

 

Very good work.

 

-------------

 

P.S. The altitude performance drop offs under discussion are not new.  You can search threads from many years ago and it was one of the pieces of evidence I always brought up when asking for FM revisions.


  • 0

#48 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 July 2015 - 15:57

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I don't know if you meant the data or the flight model, but I rerun the Pfalz at 3000m (with and without auto-radiator -- at higher altitudes you can see a difference) and the data stands the same, correct in both modes*. Later today I might do a run at 2900m and 3100m to see if there is an anomaly with the flight model. 

 

Edit* - it was the math that was wrong. I might have swapped something. It gained a couple kilometers.

 

The F.2b will come in the two-seaters chart, which is still a work in progress. I might change the name of the charts to "single seaters" and "two-seaters and bombers". I also need to check the Nieuport 17 variants and the S-16.


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

#49 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 July 2015 - 16:35

All files in the OP and the Pfalz data at 3000m were corrected.


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

#50 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 04 July 2015 - 18:17

Good work.  The Albatros D.III, D.Va, and Pfalz D.IIIa are all based on the same FM.  It's so strange how different they are from the D.VII (mercedes), which looks more correct for a normally aspirated engine from 1918.


  • 0

#51 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 July 2015 - 18:40

I doubt these planes FMs have some crazy engine flaw with regard to the speed drop off.  Based on working with the MS FS flight models, my guess is that they are using some odd aspect ratio and/or Oswald efficiency factor that is causing a lot of drag at high AOA, which is what you have when you fly high. 

 

The FMs model only one wing, but we have biplanes!  So 777 used a really weird aspect ratio and Oswald efficiency factor for the Dr1 they made in MSFS.  This is why they need a free helping hand on fine tuning these FMs...


  • 0

#52 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 July 2015 - 19:58

This is why they need a free helping hand on fine tuning these FMs...

 

That would be simply awesome.


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

#53 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 04 July 2015 - 20:03

Chill31, compare the Albatros D.Va to the Fokker D.VII.  They are supposed to have the same engine!

 

IIRC, when we were doing the FMs with your spreadsheet I calculated that the D.VII actually has a higher aspect ratio than the Albatros because of the staggering of the wings (so less interference).


  • 0

#54 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 July 2015 - 20:35

Chill31, compare the Albatros D.Va to the Fokker D.VII.  They are supposed to have the same engine!

 

IIRC, when we were doing the FMs with your spreadsheet I calculated that the D.VII actually has a higher aspect ratio than the Albatros because of the staggering of the wings (so less interference).

The Alb D5a, Alb D3, and Pfalz D3a appear to have the same engine due to the speed increase between 0 and 1 km.  The D7 doesn't have that.  The rest of the curve, and the curves for all other planes, show wide variations in how much speed is lost with altitude.  I think those variations are due to 777s calculated aspect ratio and Oswald efficiency factor more than any engine difference.

 

If you still have the spreadsheet, it might be interesting to see the effect of speed vs altitude with different ARs and EF.


  • 0

#55 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 04 July 2015 - 21:16

Oswald efficiency and aspect ratio don't make the plane faster at 1km versus sea level. ;)


  • 0

#56 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 14 July 2015 - 05:10

I am going to add some planes to the bombers' chart this week. I am already done with the Felix, FE2b and Bristol (both). I am double checking some data (need to check the Felix curve with load) and I might add a plane or two to this batch.


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

#57 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:16

Oswald efficiency and aspect ratio don't make the plane faster at 1km versus sea level. ;)

 

But the lift/drag ratio and AoA easily can...and at the rate of 3:1 compared to engine thrust.

 

Horsepower v drag is absolutely no guide to airspeed unless all of the other aerodynamic forces are exactly the same (aircraft for aircraft). Remember that drag also increases in proportion to the lift-ratio and lift, in turn, increases relative to thrust, weight and airspeed. That is why it is an equation.

 

It is often overlooked that physical drag + aerodynamic drag = total drag.

Cheers.

 

 

 

.


  • 0

#58 Capt.TeddyBear

Capt.TeddyBear
  • Posts: 577

Posted 14 July 2015 - 21:18

Hi SeaW0lf,

 

Very cool and great work. Much appreciated.

 

Could I ask that you test and add the gun variations for the planes that have them? Such as the overhead guns on the Spads & N11/17 etc, balloon guns on Spads & N28's, rear gun combo's and so on?

 

Should take all of 5 minutes? :icon_e_deadman:


  • 0

Free Krusty & Wodewick!

 

Verified Gaming JerkGT  


#59 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 14 July 2015 - 22:33

Hi SeaW0lf,

 

Very cool and great work. Much appreciated.

 

Could I ask that you test and add the gun variations for the planes that have them? Such as the overhead guns on the Spads & N11/17 etc, balloon guns on Spads & N28's, rear gun combo's and so on?

 

Should take all of 5 minutes? :icon_e_deadman:

 

Initially I thought about doing that, but I would have to basically rerun all the planes. And not only we have the weapon mods, but there is also the combination of bombs and weapon mods. Or a twin gun and a single gun in the Gotha, for example. Or scouts with bombs.

 

I am already talking a long time to run the two-seaters, because I have to make one run empty and one loaded. They are slower, the runs take more time (even with compression 16X), and the bombers with two engines have inconsistencies, which leads to more runs... You got the picture. The only relatively easy work is the planes without mixture control, but they are rare. Mixture control, especially in bombers, makes it a long work to test all six altitudes. In a two-seater, plus 2 (empty / load).

 

But you can pick a plane that you like and test it. This chart already helped me in combat a few times -- knowing how my rides perform against the opposition.

 

If you don't know how to change the plane in the template, I'll make a tutorial for whoever wants to give it a try.

 

Let me know! I can make a tutorial for the template. It is really easy and addictive after you start to see the data from the planes.


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

#60 Capt.TeddyBear

Capt.TeddyBear
  • Posts: 577

Posted 15 July 2015 - 12:32

weeeeeell SeaW0lf if I must choose... let me think for a minute, oh the choices are endless, how will I ever choose something like the Spad XIII with balloon gund, Spad 180 & 150 with overhead lewis gun?

 

OK say it with me Spaaaaaaaaad!!


  • 0

Free Krusty & Wodewick!

 

Verified Gaming JerkGT  


#61 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 15 July 2015 - 13:02

Les pourparlers de teddybear comme cela signifie buisness . :o


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 


#62 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 15 July 2015 - 15:27

weeeeeell SeaW0lf if I must choose... let me think for a minute, oh the choices are endless, how will I ever choose something like the Spad XIII with balloon gund, Spad 180 & 150 with overhead lewis gun?

 

OK say it with me Spaaaaaaaaad!!

 

LOL


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

#63 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 15 July 2015 - 16:52

Recently added planes to the charts:

 

Bristol F3
Bristol F2
Halberstadt CL2 D.IIIau
Halberstadt CL2 D.IIIa
Felixstowe F.2A
F.E.2b

 

I divided the chart into empty and load. They were starting to overlap too much. I also highlighted special runs, with lesser bombs and fuel to be doable. But I don't recall checking the variables in all planes. I will standardize the charts at the end. I am just experimenting right now.

 

I am realizing that two engined planes have inconsistent runs. It may be a flight model issue to model two engines. The mixture control behaves oddly as well, spiking one or the other engine as I try to set both at the same time. I had to assign different keys to each engine to set most of the runs.

 

Enjoy!


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

#64 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 15 July 2015 - 17:31

From what I see in real life data, the engines still are determinant for the scouts performance in most cases. It could not be otherwise. The N17 with an 110hp engine could never be slower than the N11 with an 80hp engine. 

 

Well, it depends on the weight and drag of the airframe too ! 

The Sopwith 11/2 Stutter and the Sopwith Camel used the same 130hp engine.

Both planes, flown as 1 seater, had different topspeeds ( 157-162 km/h for Strutter and 173-179km/h for the Camel). That´s caused by 2 reasons: The smaller plane has less drag and less weight for the same poweroutput of the engine. 

977kg for the Strutter vs 700kg for the Camel.

 

But the N.11 is still too fast in RoF ! 156km/h is the topspeed in the most books and websites for WWI planes.  165km/h is either its topseed as "Racing Plane" without any MG installed or someone had propably one drink too much and wrote 165km/h in his book after reading a original dokument showing 156km/h :icon_eek:  :icon_e_biggrin:  :icon_e_wink: !  156 + a few drinks = 165 ;)


  • 0

#65 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 15 July 2015 - 19:14

Well, it depends on the weight and drag of the airframe too ! 

The Sopwith 11/2 Stutter and the Sopwith Camel used the same 130hp engine.

Both planes, flown as 1 seater, had different topspeeds ( 157-162 km/h for Strutter and 173-179km/h for the Camel). That´s caused by 2 reasons: The smaller plane has less drag and less weight for the same poweroutput of the engine. 

977kg for the Strutter vs 700kg for the Camel.

 

But the N.11 is still too fast in RoF ! 156km/h is the topspeed in the most books and websites for WWI planes.  165km/h is either its topseed as "Racing Plane" without any MG installed or someone had propably one drink too much and wrote 165km/h in his book after reading a original dokument showing 156km/h :icon_eek:  :icon_e_biggrin:  :icon_e_wink: !  156 + a few drinks = 165 ;)

 

From all I know, the 80hp engines are in the vicinity of 165kmh. At 1100rpm, the N11 has a cruise speed of 85mph (Vintage Aviator). Making a quick math, at 1350rpm it would be in the range of 104mph (167km/h). It is not that off, but I didn't read much about this period. But remember, all planes in ROF fly at 100% rpm.

 

The other thing is -- both N11 and N17 have a very similar frame. All I read is that the N17 and the Sopwith Triplane were the only planes to match the Albatros, and the N17 is often cited at 175-177km/h. If you take into account that several historical Dr.Is have their max speed of 180km/h (Carlson's 185km/h with a Le Rhone), and the N17 has the same engine, it has to be around. The Dr.I has better drag efficiency than the N17, and you can imagine it a bit slower than the Dr.I and the Albatros D.III.

 

I cannot imagine Albert Ball happy about flying a Nieuport 17 'Bébé' instead of a 'dull' S.E.5 more than 40km/h faster. Not even Voss would be happy flying a Dr.I 'Bébé'. His one was faster than the Pfalzes of his squadron (8.000ft), just like the historic Dr.I's we have in real life.

 

Regarding quotes in books and documents, recurrent mistakes that I have seen among researchers and even books -- people quoting max speeds at sea level when it was in fact at 10-13.000ft. I know of a plane that was cited with a max speed of 165km/h at sea level when a veteran book author replied "but all my sources point this number at 10.000ft". And the mistake was looked for, identified and corrected. No, it wasn't the Fokker Dr.I, but I won't say which plane it is because it does not matter. What matter is that these mistakes end up in books, and I have seen this aforementioned wrong quote in a printed book. Don't ask me, because I don't remember which book was that.

 

It is not by chance. You don't have much leeway for mistakes, because one wrong data invalidates the planes that are in the vicinity. And then you have to go back again and cross-reference to invalidate the wrong data. And a historic Dr.I data is a good landmark, as well as the Fokker D.VIII tested at McCook Field.

 

But I am not really into looking at 80hp engines, because it is hard work and this was supposed to be done by professionals, people who is in the market of simulators.

 

(edit) Remember also about the "cruise" speed. This can create a lot of confusion.


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

#66 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 15 July 2015 - 20:55

From all I know, the 80hp engines are in the vicinity of 165kmh. At 1100rpm, the N11 has a cruise speed of 85mph (Vintage Aviator). Making a quick math, at 1350rpm it would be in the range of 104mph (167km/h). It is not that off, but I didn't read much about this period. But remember, all planes in ROF fly at 100% rpm.

 

The other thing is -- both N11 and N17 have a very similar frame. All I read is that the N17 and the Sopwith Triplane were the only planes to match the Albatros, and the N17 is often cited at 175-177km/h.

 

Regarding quotes in books and documents, recurrent mistakes that I have seen among researchers and even books --

I built RC models of WWI fighters for over 20 years now and just like the real planes there is a big difference for example at the airspeed an prob. with given pitch at an given rpm of the engine can produce theoretical and in reallity.

 

If the prop. has to much pitch for the engine, the engine simply can´t reach its  max rpm!

 

The airspeed after the prop. must be higher as the max Speed of the plane cause of the drag of its Body. 

 

If the 167km/h for the N.II would have been right, the Roland C.II would not have been such an feared recon until N.17 and Spad VII ( 150hp) arrived at the front :icon_e_smile: . And in reality the Halberstadt D.II was respected even by N.17 pilots and Spad aces ! .... The real Halberstadt D.II was able to dive with very high Speed without ripping of their wings :icon_e_wink:.

 

If you search for the topp Speed of the N.11 you will find 156km/h in over 90 % of all books and I know only one book that states 165km/h for the N.11!  Everybody can come to its own conclusion :icon_e_salute: !

 

The N.17´s had not only one engine variant ! 110hp, 120hp and even 130hp engines were used in this fighter ! 

The 110hp ( mid 1916 ) reached 165km/h at sea Level.

The 120hp ( early 1917) reached 170-177km/h at sea Level.

The 130hp ( late 1917)   reached 182-185km/h at sea Level. ( N.17 Bis)

 

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#67 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 15 July 2015 - 22:03

Well, you believe in what you want to believe. I don't trust books alone. One quote usually ends up in all books. The Dr.I is quoted at 165km/h in most books, and they should know better. They were most likely quoting the cruise speed or the speed at 10.000ft.

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

#68 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 July 2015 - 07:29

Correction in the two-seaters' chart (with load).

 

In the data, I had swapped the subtitles in the special run for the Page and the Halb Cl2. Some people might have noticed the Page running with "50kg" of load. This is for the Cl2. The Page is 16X112lb.


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

#69 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 16 July 2015 - 13:18

 

Well, you believe in what you want to believe. I don't trust books alone. One quote usually ends up in all books. The Dr.I is quoted at 165km/h in most books, and they should know better. They were most likely quoting the cruise speed or the speed at 10.000ft.

 

NO!!! I don´t trust in books alone! I use every Chance to get more Infos for the planes I built or fly :icon_e_salute: !

I have visited a lot of airshows here in Germany and had the honer to talk with pilots of many WWI and WWII fighters ( replicas,rebuilds and original planes). The DR.I is quotet with 178km/h on sealevel in the most books and 165km/h at 3000m height. 165km/h at sealevel is simlpy fals data ;).

I talked to an Pilot of an Dr.I  replica with 110hp engine and he also stated his plane with ca.180km/h  topspeed at sealevel.

If you really interested in the Nieuport N.11 I can tell you its very interesting to g..gle for the "Historical Aviation Film Unit" and read about their wonderful scale rebuild with original 80hp rotary engine.

In many "Cheap Books" are data based on one quote only for a fighter, but in good books the data should  allways be base on as many quotes as possible. And if a plane like the N.17 had 110hp,120hp and 130hp engines and served  from mid 1916 - early 1918 its very likely that its toppspeed increased with every upgrade :icon_e_biggrin: ! 

And one very important Question about the claimed 165km/h for N.11. -> If the N.11 would have been able to fly 165km/h at sea Level, why did Nieuport build the N.16 ( an slightly enlarged "copy" of its N.11design) to use the 110hp rotaries and this plane did also only reach 165km/h at sea Level?  

 

Thank You for the very interesting and really useful diagrams by the way :icon_e_salute:  :icon_e_salute:  :icon_e_salute: !


  • 0

#70 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 July 2015 - 16:34

Well, like I said, I don't know much about the planes with 80hp engines, but if you agree that the Dr.I has a max speed of 180km/h at sea level, the N17 can't be at 165km/h. They have similar weights, and although the N17 has more drag (according to NASA), I would assume it can't be below 170km/h in any hypothesis.
 
By the way, do you know the owner of the Dr.I you talked to? Or does he belong to an air show or group like Vintage Aviation? I am interested in writing to him to add more data to the Dreideckerholics Anonymous topic. It is one more stone into the brick wall.
 
Ah, thanks for the feedback on the charts. It is fun to do.
 
:icon_e_salute:

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

#71 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 16 July 2015 - 17:22

167-170km/h is my guess for the top Speed of an (factory fresh) N.17 with 110hp engine with sync.MG.

 

165km/h is my guess for an British N.17 with overwing gun ( more drag !).

 

165km/ could also be the topp speed of an N.17 ( 110hp) at 1000m hight.

 

I´m very sorry, but I met the Fokker Pilot on an airshow at the "Hahnweide" (Germany) in 2002 or 2003. ( I build an RC Dr.I in 1/6 at this time)

I can´t remember its name but he was from the netherlands and its Fokker was painted in the "Red Baron paintshame".

I think it used an 110hp radial engine instead of the original rotary.

He said his Dr.I had very good handling qualitys once it was airborn, but starting and landing ( especially even with slightest crosswind) can be an really pain in the A.. :icon_e_biggrin: ! 

I was most impressed about his loopings, rolls and very tight turns on ground level even at very low speeds!

It wasn´t as fast as other wwi fighters at this airshow, but boy it really can climb like an ape ... :icon_e_biggrin:  at low Speed and with an AoA you thought it would stall the very next sec. , but it didn`t.

 

As we say in Germany " Holm und Rippenbruch ! " :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#72 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 July 2015 - 17:39

Yeah, not sure, but below 170km/h is a long way down. The Le Rhone is suppose to have a bit more punch than the Oberusel as well. I might take a look at some data from the N17, but it does not seem to be a popular plane on the internet. Maybe in France perhaps.

 

:icon_e_salute:


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

#73 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 16 July 2015 - 18:48

An other question ...

 

The Albatross D.II in Rof has an topp speed of 164 km/h ,... right ? 

But were is any book or source which states 164km/h for it as topp speed ?

 

Sure it had not the climb rate of the D.III and even the D.I climbed better, but in allmost every book and source I read it had an topp speed of at least 175km/h ! Even the floatplane Version W.IV (with much more drag) had an top Speed of 160km/h at sea Level. 

 

I don´t say its not a good fighter in RoF, because it is quite an good turnfighter in this game ( propably better than the real one ...), but other important advantages of the real fighter are not modelled in game. Richthofen and other aces used it mostly to attack british 2 Seaters with high speed attacks in a dive! Thats the reason why Richthofen almost died after an wing break of its Albatross D.III !

The D.III had to be flown more in combination of turnfight and BnZ but the main strength of the D.II was its BnZ abilities against the N.17 , Pup and early Spad VII ( 150hp).

 

It was the first BnZ fighter with 2 MG for firepower ! And not one single Quote of wings breaking at speeds of 240km/h in ANY book!

Even the D.III and D.V reached its critical diving and manouver speed not before 270km/h after most Quotes !

 

Happy flying :icon_e_salute: !


  • 0

#74 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4149
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 16 July 2015 - 21:42

It definetely should be faster than it is in RoF, however:

Albatroses were very good divers for 1916/early 1917 thanks to heavy Mercedes engines; once they went nose-down, engine mass pull let them accelerate quickly. In D.II (and Pfalz DIII?)  the sturdy wings allowed to use it much more then in sesquiplanes.

Biplane gains minimal lift increase compared to monoplane, most useful at lowering stall speed and slow speed turns, and braces upper wing against the lower, at cost of drag. Moreso the triplanes :) . Monoplane is faster, but not so good in sustained turn and wings can't be easily braced. S
esquiplane is almost a monoplane with extra bracing in form of half-wing - almost speed of monoplane, almost maneuvrability and resilence of biplane. Of Albatroses,D.II is made for turning, D.III/D.Va is made for horisotal  speed.

I have read on this very forum that D.IIs were plane of choice when facing Tripehounds, for this very reason. But don't remember who said it, or how believable he was :).


  • 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.”


#75 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:37

I admit that when in career I change from DII to DIII it is certainly a sort of "ah, an upgrade.... or is it?" moment in Career mode. 

 

On the one hand the extra top speed allows intercepts of RE8s from positions that the DII simply could not match. On the other, you have to be acutely careful about wing strength, engine temperature and over-reving, making diving attacks extremely difficult to get right. I find that I can only treat the last one or two hundred metres of a dive as an opportunity to build up energy: any height advantage over this has to be given up in a careful descent.

 

As for flat turns - forget about it. I find the DIII is much better off used Immelmann style. DVa is just the same.

 

So it is odd that the DII is actually easier to use BnZ since it is less liable to disintegrate around you, and better at turning fights.

 

The reason why I would still choose DIII over DII is that the top speed advantage is key to intercepting and, if necessary, disengaging. Both planes are good enough in a fight, provided that you enter with advantage.

 

Is this realistic? I have no idea - just how the game pans out for me.


  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#76 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:19

If I had been Richthofen after his wingfailure experience on the D.III  I had told my mechanics to Change the engine of the D.III bak in my "old" Albatross D.II :icon_e_biggrin:  :icon_lol:  :icon_e_salute: ( The real D.II was as fast on low Level as the D.III but this way it would have had a bit better climb rate and Speed at altitude) !

... P.S. its told he really changed back to fly an Halberstadt for a few weeks! 

 

But there exist two Versions of this Story !

No.1: He Changed to an Halberstadt D.II ( which in RoF would make no sence at all, because wing failures happen to it even before the critical speed of the D.III´s  and its very slow and "undergunned" compared to the Albatross  D.II and D.III)

 

and ...

 

No.2: This  "Halberstadt" was in fact an Albatross D.II,which Halberstadt had built with licence early in 1917. ( Which would make lot more sence for me!)

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#77 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4149
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:50

He changed back to Halberstadt. J11 was orignally the Halberstadt D unit; when MvR took over in January, they had just one Albatros D.I and one D.II. He went out of his way to have his command re-equipped with Albatroses, got some D.IIIs in late January only to be one of the first to discover the wing failures. After that D.IIIs were grounded for couple of months, Richthoffen switched to Halberstadts because that's what his squadron had. February weather didn't allow for many combat flights, anyway. Instead, cause of failure was investigated, ways to strengthen the lower wing by field mechanics found, Richthoffen was visiting his family, consulting Idflied about improving D.IIIs, visited other Jastas to instruct them on field-strengthening their D.IIIs and flying a Halberstadt in meantime.


  • 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.”


#78 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 17 July 2015 - 10:52

I doubt that MvR's Halberstadt was an Albatross. One of his combat reports (English translation from "Under the Guns of the Red Baron")mentions his Halberstadter plane.

Most of the planes he shot down in the Halb were BE2s, which you could probably overtake just by flapping your arms hard enough!

He did also get a SPAD and an N17 in a Halberstadt, but then so have I! ;) It is quite good enough for early 1917 as long as you do not get yourself outnumbered, but MvR was too smart to do that whatever he was flying.
  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#79 Whiskey31180

Whiskey31180
  • Member
  • Posts: 42

Posted 17 July 2015 - 14:23

I doubt that MvR's Halberstadt was an Albatross. One of his combat reports (English translation from "Under the Guns of the Red Baron")mentions his Halberstadter plane.

Most of the planes he shot down in the Halb were BE2s, which you could probably overtake just by flapping your arms hard enough!

He did also get a SPAD and an N17 in a Halberstadt, but then so have I! ;) It is quite good enough for early 1917 as long as you do not get yourself outnumbered, but MvR was too smart to do that whatever he was flying.

The "real" Halberstadt D.II and D.III were light but much stronger build than the RoF Version  :icon_e_smile: ! 

If 145km/h was ist "real" topspeed on sealevel is at least doubtable ( 150-158 km/h is more likely, but there are simply to less Information about its topspeed).  But still in RoF it is relative fast at ´hights of 3000m and above ( comparet to N.11,N17 and Dh.2 ).

I knew that an Spad VII ace complaint about the 150ps Spad to be inferoir to the Halberstadt D.II. The Halberstadt was nimble, had a low wing loading and an better turnrate than Spad VII and N.17,... only the Pup could match it. All Quotes I know state that it was able to dive perfectly safe with high Speeds. 


  • 0

#80 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 17 July 2015 - 14:55

I do not remember having structural problems with the Halb - but then I tend to fly very conservatively anyway, since I like to fly Career Dead-is-Dead. There is no point risking ripping your wings off to shoot someone down, when there will be another customer along before long. So I only dive aggressively if I am wounded and being swarmed. Add a lot of side slip and you can get down very steeply without breaking up and find a nice field to land in.

I suspect most people losing wings in dives are doing it while pulling out.

I certainly cannot follow an undamaged SPAD with any success: need to see where they are going and cut the corner.

The one thing I found about the Halb is that it is very tricky to land without nosing over. You have to run it in and let the tail settle very slowly, as the slightest back pressure on the stick makes the tail skid rebound off the grass and flip right up. The AI sometimes gets this wrong while landing too - assuming they have miraculously managed to avoid the trees and hangers! No idea if this is realistic.
  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users