Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

An. Petrovich...question about the Camel DM


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Jimko

Jimko
  • Posts: 18

Posted 11 December 2009 - 21:55

I wonder why neoqb decided to make the Camel upper wing more vulnerable to failure under stress. I've had a couple of instances where it's done this but I didn't think that the maneuver justified the amount of wing structure damage. In fact, although the N28 was known for upper wing structure weakness, the Camel was supposed to be quite rugged in that respect.

From the book, “Sopwith Camel – King of Combat” by Chaz Bowyer

Quote:

“One pilot who knew the Camel intimately was Captain Ronald Sykes, DFC…

Based on his contemporary original notes and log book, Sykes has recorded the following descriptions – virtually a set of ИPilot’s Notes’ – on how to fly a Camel, then expands on various facets of the Camel when flown in the operational context.

I have vivid recollections of my first dive in a Camel. It was on 12 September, 1917, in B3907, that I followed the Flight in their normal climb to 9000 feet, and across the lines to the first ИArchie’ crumps; then an experienced pilot led me away from the main patrol and I followed him back home. He pushed his stick forward and I kept formation with him, somewhat startled at the steep angle but feeling very protected in the deep cockpit and reassured by the long, strong joystick in which there was no back-lash and an instant response. We were soon going down vertically and the throttle and fine-adjustment levers needed closing slightly to keep the engine speed below the Иnever exceed’ rpm. The ASI (Air Speed Indicator) needle went all around the dial to its limit of 180 and the scream of the wind was alarming, but still my leader kept going straight down for thousands of feet. Outside the open cockpit the air seemed to have gone thick, dragging at my helmet and goggles. Then his speed dropped slightly as he reduced engine power; he moved slightly from the vertical, and as I followed him my speed dropped a bit more. He then pulled the stick very gently for a very short distance and as we began to round-out, my neck went into my shoulders, and my arm became too heavy to lift to the throttle.
He had demonstrated the strength and rigidity of the Camel.”

This is part of several pages of quotes that were taken from Sykes’ notes and are in a section of the book called “From the Cockpit”.

There are other testimonials to the strength of the Camel, and so I have to wonder if the current wing-stress damage model is overdone?

In testing a vertical dive from 12000 to 8000 feet in the RoF Camel, the upper wing falls apart as soon as I begin a gentle pullout. This just doesn’t seem right in view of the quote above, and other similar historical statements.
  • 0

#2 Kiwi-GB

Kiwi-GB
  • Posts: 102

Posted 12 December 2009 - 15:31

Yes, I've read a few of those quotes as well.
Not only is the Sop. Camel not as strong as stated in various historical books,
but it is also not as maneuverable. It seems rather sluggish and not as nimble and agile.

Regards M.P.
  • 0

#3 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 12 December 2009 - 15:34

Yes, I've read a few of those quotes as well.
Not only is the Sop. Camel not as strong as stated in various historical books,
but it is also not as maneuverable. It seems rather sluggish and not as nimble and agile.

Regards M.P.

uv been flyin real camel in WW1? :lol:

feded by myths….

yes it was a great plane in WW1 and it is in ROF….few days ago i had 3 kills in one mission online in camel….when im flyin online my hopes are….I would not be involved in close combat with a good pilot in a camel…
  • 0

#4 Kiwi-GB

Kiwi-GB
  • Posts: 102

Posted 12 December 2009 - 15:51

The main Sopwith factory in Kingston was 300 yards away from my house.
So I know quite a lot about the Camel. :)
  • 0

#5 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 12 December 2009 - 16:41

The main Sopwith factory in Kingston was 300 yards away from my house.
So I know quite a lot about the Camel. :)

I will ask u again…you was a fighter pilot in Camel in WW1?
  • 0

#6 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 12 December 2009 - 16:57

Yes, I've read a few of those quotes as well.
Not only is the Sop. Camel not as strong as stated in various historical books,
but it is also not as maneuverable. It seems rather sluggish and not as nimble and agile.

Regards M.P.

You have got to be kidding me. :roll:
  • 0

#7 mozza

mozza
  • Posts: 137

Posted 12 December 2009 - 18:39

Hey MP - don't mind trvdi !! He obviously flew fokker DR1s in 1917-18 and is therefore well placed to comment in this sort of thing in our "virtual reality " world. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Fokker boys are scared that the Camel FM and DM model might be improved (apart from the wing issue - I think the FM is pretty good) and will give them a harder time. The improved FM and DM model will be the Sopwith Snipe !!! And the entente will need that to go up against the Fokker D8.

The Camel is a "wee beastie" to fly and master (I am still learning an improving) ,,,,but in expert hands is still probably the best T&B fighter (only the DR1 in experten hands is comparable/better). In 1.009 version I did initially pull the bleedin wings of a couple of times - but now don't seem to do this - although your research and tests do indicate that the current model is a tad flimsy in my opinion.

The fact is - we will never really know what it was like to fly one of these aircarft with combat loadings and conditions as in 1914-18. The best people able to comment are pilots of the last flying WW1 museum aircraft in the air today (and the forum does have some reviews and comments )..and they don't exactly fly these to the max with combat loadouts.

This all makes for a wonderful and heated and passionate discussions on the forum !! Which will no doubt heat up a level when the Fokker D8 is launched next week (will it have wing strength issues ???. What we don't want is an UBER plane that everbody flocks to - as then things wil get boring. However - even the Noop 28 and 17 in skilled hands can be a challenge.

GR8 Stuff

Mozza (AKA Fokker Fodder)
  • 0

#8 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 12 December 2009 - 20:01

Hey MP - don't mind trvdi !! He obviously flew fokker DR1s in 1917-18 and is therefore well placed to comment in this sort of thing in our "virtual reality " world. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Mozza (AKA Fokker Fodder)

quite the opposite….never said how one plane should behave in this sim….unlike quoted guy…and ur fishing?
and FYI I spent almost equal amount of time in camel as in DRI..online….
  • 0

#9 Jimko

Jimko
  • Posts: 18

Posted 12 December 2009 - 21:00

Personally, I really like the FM on the 1.009 Camel, in fact, it's much better in terms of response for me than it was in 1.008 and it seems to be close to what it should be according to original pilot's accounts. But, I've never flown a Camel either, so I'm no expert. I can only go by the perception I get from reading the pilot's comments. My problem with it is the upper wing failure in 1.009 which seems a bit contrary to written reports.

Martin, I wonder if your controller peripherals might make a difference, since this kind of thing seems to vary so much with different gaming setups. For example, most people have no problem with the N17 in a take-off, but I can hardly get the darn thing in the air…it is so sensitive to rudder and roll control for me. It's the only plane that I had that trouble with, at least in 1.008. Yet I can haul the Camel around with authority; it’s like a sports car for me compared to other planes in RoF. I found that the default response curves work best for me in 1.009, yet others find they need to adjust the curves to be able to control the Camel.

It's kind of a mystery how they behave differently on different systems so that's why I wondered what others think of the 1.009 upper wing DM.
  • 0

#10 Jimko

Jimko
  • Posts: 18

Posted 13 December 2009 - 06:58

Something is definitely wrong!

Flying the Camel tonight and twice I've gone into a dive from low altitude…about 2000 ft. and the dive was only down to about 1500 ft or so, at which point I started a pullout and "Bang!", away went part of the upper wing. My pullout wasn't severe!

Try it. This can't be right.
I think that the 1.009 Camel upper wing is waaay too fragile now!
  • 0

#11 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 13 December 2009 - 07:05

The problem is that you're pulling more G's than a fabric kite pilot would have ever attempted. Without some physiological limitation on what you can do, you're going to break the aircraft instead of the pilot.
  • 0

#12 Jimko

Jimko
  • Posts: 18

Posted 13 December 2009 - 07:41

The problem is that you're pulling more G's than a fabric kite pilot would have ever attempted. Without some physiological limitation on what you can do, you're going to break the aircraft instead of the pilot.

Your comment is interesting, but,

1. A dive of about 500 ft is not much to pull out from, and I stated that the pullout wasn't severe.
2. I've never had this trouble with the Camel in the 1.008 patch.
3. A few others are now reporting this kind of damage in dogfights since the last patch.
4. Check the quote in my first post in this thread re the Camel's strength.

I hope that some others will test the Camel and report their findings. I just don't believe that I've suddenly become so heavy handed, since I've been flying the Camel in RoF since it came out with all kinds of dives and maneuvers and without this problem until this last patch.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users