Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Dolphin Speed and Specification


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#1 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 18:53

We've seen a chart of quoted data but we have not seen RoF users' flight-test data, not that I can see anyway - sorry if I'm getting that wrong

Submit your charts/movie clips/screenshots here please from your Dolphin flight-tests, or if you'd prefer to be even more scientific you can send me your data without revealing it to other forum members - this would be preferable because later submissions' data collection will not be affected by earlier submissions. And I will compile a meta-data study (an analysis over many analyses) after receiving the standard-analysis number of samples for 95% statistical significance: 20 samples (meaning that most results fall within a confidence interval, we can say that most of the reports suggest the same figure or that our theory looks interesting- this figure appears to be the correct figure that we were trying to discover). Airspeed is indicated air speed (read from an instrument) and a IAS-to-TAS converter here http://www.csgnetwor...asinfocalc.html">http://www.csgnetwor...asinfocalc.html (I'm not sure myself about why the two are different but if you're helping out with this you'll probably be able to tell me

Hmm is it that the air is thinner higher up and the standard aneroid altimeter barometer converting pressure into airspeed needs correcting (because the spring is not expanding/contracting in an entirely linear fashion?) I don't need to know for the purposes of collating flight-test data, luckily :)

When we have that final compiled document we can check it against any original and primary Dolphin flight-test data (suitably weighted)

There should be a standard protocol for the flight-test, someone can suggest a testing protocol please Eric? :)

The height for the test and the boost pressure and whatever else needs to be declared in order to standardise the test before we begin testing I mean. And if we already have the flight-test-run specification (height etc) from the original flight-test then that would make the analysis that much simpler.

Ming
  • 0

#2 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 19:32

Doh! I've got my 19 Squadron History book right here

Sopwith 5F1 Dolphin

Built in Britain as a fighter in 1917. It was powered by a Hispano-Suiza V8 inline liquid cooled 200HP engine, giving it a maximum speed of 120mph, a ceiling of 19,000 feet and an endurance of 1 hour 45 minutes. It had two machine guns and a crew of one


Source: 'Fighter Squadron' by Derek Palmer Page 358 ISBN 1 85421 075 0

Derek Palmer is No. 19 Squadron's Official Squadron Historian

And I've got a list of 19 Squadron's Dolphin serial numbers, 75 in total

Ming
  • 0

#3 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 14 May 2010 - 21:29

From the Osprey book:

"The initial pilot test reports indicated that the Dolphin could reach a speed of just under 120 knots (222 kmh or 138 mph), but as the Air Speed Indicator only went up to this speed, and the needle was hard up against the notch when the fighter was in flight at ground level, a higher speed was assumed possible. On an early flight it was pitted against a Camel, and the Dolphin pilot had little problem keeping the Camel at bay, while the Camel pilot seemed powerless to get into any attacking position."

"I found it a very good fighting machine, and a great improvement in climb, performance and armament on the SPAD (presumably SPAD VII), but with less climb and 'zoom' than the SE5…"

"Trials at Martlesham Heath and in France had shown the Dolphin to posssess excellent performance and handling at high altitude - above 20,000' - as well as at lower heights"

(my comments in italics)

Unfortunately, the Osprey book is otherwise pretty thin on technical detail. It seems to have been a good high-altitude fighter that was not the fastest or tightest turning, but had a good overall balance and was easy to fly. The pilots seemed to really like it once they got over their understandable fear of nosing over on landing.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#4 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 14 May 2010 - 22:03

Just done a quick test of the RoF Dolphin with no ammunition and 10% fuel at 200 m. I could get it to just a wafer under 200 kph. If the Osprey quote is correct (if!) then the RoF Dolphin is about 20 kph too slow near sea level.

If (another if!) Matt's test of the RoF Dolphin (http://riseofflight....=108293#p108293">viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9712&p=108293#p108293) at about 10,000' and the Profile book's table (http://riseofflight....t=9751&start=10">viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9751&start=10) are correct, then the RoF Dolphin is too slow by about 8 kmh at 10,000' and just right at 15,000'.

i.e.,

Sea level: too slow by about 20 kph
10,000': too slow by about 8 kmh
15,000': just right

The Profile book mentions that Dolphin engines were overhauled to have a higher compression ration of 5.3:1, which raised the power from 200 hp to 220 hp. I wonder if that is part of the explanation for the difference?

It's still one of my favourite aircraft.

"The backward stagger…conveyed to me the impression of a lion or tiger crouched back on its haunches ready to spring, and I took a dislike to it at once", L. J. Delaney, 19 Squadron.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#5 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 14 May 2010 - 22:15

So the conclusion is?
RoF's Dolphin I have correct max speed at sea level in compare with available data sources, right? And only source is available for this parameter was posted by Ming.

  • 0

#6 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 23:03

No parallax error, beautiful lighting :)

Ming

Image
  • 0

#7 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 23:12

The initial pilot test reports indicated that the Dolphin could reach a speed of just under 120 knots (222 kmh or 138 mph), but as the Air Speed Indicator only went up to this speed

Anyone else spot the airspeed indicator on our Dolphin has a range of forty miles per hour to one hundred and sixty miles per hour (40mph to 160mph)

Immediately a small mystery :)

Mark IV-something meter type

Ming
  • 0

#8 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 15 May 2010 - 02:49

So the conclusion is?
RoF's Dolphin I have correct max speed at sea level in compare with available data sources, right? And only source is available for this parameter was posted by Ming.

Er, what? People have posted sources pinning it at 131mph, and someone just posted one claiming 138mph, and you immediately follow with "So 120mph is correct?"

:?:
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#9 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 15 May 2010 - 03:10

I know wikipedia isn't the best source of information, but they give the Dolphin MK1 max speed 211 km/h… :? and theaerodrome.com at 206 km/h…
  • 0

#10 Von_Hess

Von_Hess
  • Posts: 9

Posted 15 May 2010 - 03:41

So i c a new dolph thread :lol:

Given the set of instruments in rise of flight at this point makes testing pretty hard, im talking about sloppy flying or overcompensating both have an impact on test results.

One could hope for an artificial horizon, variometer and a slip/skid indicater and an accellometer would be cool.

As the urgent need for a standardirised set of test parameters given out by the devs, this has been mentioned before.

My test method is:

Using the new map and flying outside the elevated terrain, we have an agl radar altimeter.

Setting the map for standard day conditions, no wind and no turbulence.

Im using a set of ballons (5) for reference points at the altitude im testing in, needed for a lot, timing manourvers etc.

I have done a ton of test and im not really sure what to say here, why do we hunt performance of individual aircrafts when the basics still aint tweaked in?

Dolphy results tested under above mentioned parameters

Sl topspeed around 125 +/- 4 mph. Tas,no difference in fuel ammo or bombs loads.
No parasitic drag from bombs/bomb rack? no weight impact on topspeed alltho it in this case should be smaller compared to drag factor.

Regards. VH.
  • 0

#11 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 15 May 2010 - 11:38

new dolph thread

A thread dedicated to production collation and analysis of Dolphin flight-test reports, to add an element of structure and to remind us all that we really are testing a flight simulator rather than simply offering conflicting opinions in long and rambling threads. To which charge I plead guilty yes. The rambling I mean, not the opinions :)

Ming
  • 0

#12 Von_Hess

Von_Hess
  • Posts: 9

Posted 15 May 2010 - 12:03

:oops: Even after all these years, i still find it a bit hard to understand what u really writes/means Ming.

I hope u botherd reading beyond what u kvoted from my post, perhaps my english isent fully understandable either eheheh.

VH.
  • 0

#13 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 15 May 2010 - 12:29

So i c a new dolph thread :lol:

Given the set of instruments in rise of flight at this point makes testing pretty hard, im talking about sloppy flying or overcompensating both have an impact on test results.

One could hope for an artificial horizon, variometer and a slip/skid indicater and an accellometer would be cool.

As the urgent need for a standardirised set of test parameters given out by the devs, this has been mentioned before.

My test method is:

Using the new map and flying outside the elevated terrain, we have an agl radar altimeter.

Setting the map for standard day conditions, no wind and no turbulence.

Im using a set of ballons (5) for reference points at the altitude im testing in, needed for a lot, timing manourvers etc.

I have done a ton of test and im not really sure what to say here, why do we hunt performance of individual aircrafts when the basics still aint tweaked in?

Dolphy results tested under above mentioned parameters

Sl topspeed around 125 +/- 4 mph. Tas,no difference in fuel ammo or bombs loads.
No parasitic drag from bombs/bomb rack? no weight impact on topspeed alltho it in this case should be smaller compared to drag factor.

Regards. VH.

The game has an "auto level" feature that will keep your plane flying level and straight. I don't know if it is 100% accurate BUT it is far better than a human trying to fly straight. This should help accurate testing a lot. Also keep in mind that you running the engine at optimal temperature will give you a speed boost of a few km/h.
  • 0

#14 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 15 May 2010 - 14:00

I hope u botherd reading beyond what u kvoted from my post

Hi Hess, which quote was that please?

Ming
  • 0

#15 Von_Hess

Von_Hess
  • Posts: 9

Posted 15 May 2010 - 14:16

:D New dolph thread Ming..

Imp. i dont c the point in comparing what our auto pilots can reach for speeds at given altitudes, using it as a yardstick for what we can optain +/- x is what ive been using it for.

Thats why we need a set of parameters defined by the devs to test under and hopefully a set of new instruments in the simple gauge option.

Ohh and Ming say hi to keets, brigs and the rest of the eaf boys, been trying to persuade the JG5 guys to get Rise of flight…

Regards VH.
  • 0

#16 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 15 May 2010 - 14:34

It is not autopilot. It just keeps the plane level. You still have full control over the engine.
  • 0

#17 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 15 May 2010 - 16:11

What a wonderful new game!

I spend hours working on a response to Viks reply to me in the OLD Dolphin thread and Ming declares it "rambling" and starts a whole new thread declaring, all by himself, the old one obsolete.

He quotes some figures giving the top sea level speed of the Dolphin and gives no basis for the data (tests?) except an obscure squadron history.

The Ming data, of course, agrees with RoF's model (I guess that's why he gets the title of "co-worker" and a pretty pink name – As Patton said, give 'em a five cent ribbon and they'll follow you anywhere).

Then Han leaps up, rings the bell and hands Ming a prize saying he has come up with the correct data even though there are conflicting sources, some of them 20 mph faster, all over the internet.

Credibility: Zero.

Meanwhile, where are neoqb's tests of its own models? Where is the data they used to build the models.

The burden is on the seller, not the customer, to prove the worth of his product.

And playing a forum shell game doesn't change that burden.

Show me the neoqb numbers.

HT
  • 0

#18 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 15 May 2010 - 16:19

its not 120 MPH is 120 KNOTS…which is 138 MPH

I see people saying 120 MPH is correct…
  • 0

#19 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 15 May 2010 - 16:20

I think that auto-level does a better job than hand flying, but its still not perfect. Without trim its never going to be.
  • 0

#20 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 15 May 2010 - 16:26

What a wonderful new game!

I spend hours working on a response to Viks reply to me in the OLD Dolphin thread and Ming declares it "rambling" and starts a whole new thread declaring, all by himself, the old one obsolete.

He quotes some figures giving the top sea level speed of the Dolphin and gives no basis for the data (tests?) except an obscure squadron history.

The Ming data, of course, agrees with RoF's model (I guess that's he gets the title of "co-worker" and a pretty pink name – As Patton said, give 'em a five cent ribbon and they'll follow you anywhere).

Then Han leaps up, rings the bell and hands Ming a prize saying he has come up with the correct data even though there are conflicting sources, some of them 20 mph faster, all over the internet.

Credibility: Zero.

Meanwhile, where are neoqb's tests of its own models?

As I said in the conclusion of the post Ming leap-frogged, the burden is on the seller, not the customer, to prove the worth of his product.

HT

I'm mostly in agreement with you, but damn man, you make me look polite.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#21 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 15 May 2010 - 16:31

What a wonderful new game!

I spend hours working on a response to Viks reply to me in the OLD Dolphin thread and Ming declares it "rambling" and starts a whole new thread declaring, all by himself, the old one obsolete.

He quotes some figures giving the top sea level speed of the Dolphin and gives no basis for the data (tests?) except an obscure squadron history.

The Ming data, of course, agrees with RoF's model (I guess that's he gets the title of "co-worker" and a pretty pink name – As Patton said, give 'em a five cent ribbon and they'll follow you anywhere).

Then Han leaps up, rings the bell and hands Ming a prize saying he has come up with the correct data even though there are conflicting sources, some of them 20 mph faster, all over the internet.

Credibility: Zero.

Meanwhile, where are neoqb's tests of its own models?

As I said in the conclusion of the post Ming leap-frogged, the burden is on the seller, not the customer, to prove the worth of his product.

HT

I'm mostly in agreement with you, but damn man, you make me look polite.



Jay,

I'm polite.

Ming is rude.

That was a BS stunt he pulled by starting a new thread on exactly the same topic to avoid addressing my points.

I agree that thread had expanded beyond the Dolphin but the point is that when your models perform vastly differently from the historical anecdotal evidence, it's time to question them.

Obviously heresy in Neoqbland.

Why should the burden of testing the models to show they are wrong fall on the customers?

Especially when they aren't even given neoqb's test data on its models and its original data sources they used to build the models to compare them to?

Impossible to conduct tests and compare and contrast them when there is no baseline.

Enough.

Out here.

HT
  • 0

#22 Von_Hess

Von_Hess
  • Posts: 9

Posted 15 May 2010 - 17:27

Imp. its an autopilot, 3 axis with no beacon plotted, u can manipulated the trottle all u want…. and it will compensate for roll yaw and pitch accordingly so for me its a bloody auto pilot. (to cut things out and bend it neon, we are talking bout the same in game function).

Squid. This is what flying.. is all about, accept the error margin from the avarage to skilled pilot under a predefined set of testing parameters, there was no trimming of all axis and nor auto pilots.

Wouldnt it be a better way to tweak in the basics that counts for all planes first before theres any performance hunting goin on for 10 km+/-? Thats just my 2

Regards VH
  • 0

#23 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 15 May 2010 - 17:38

Reminder: thread is 'Dolphin Speed and Specification'

Every plane gets its own place in the virtual wind tunnel. In each of our own virtual wind tunnels :)

Ming
  • 0

#24 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 17 May 2010 - 14:36

So the conclusion is?
RoF's Dolphin I have correct max speed at sea level in compare with available data sources, right? And only source is available for this parameter was posted by Ming.

Er, what? People have posted sources pinning it at 131mph, and someone just posted one claiming 138mph, and you immediately follow with "So 120mph is correct?"

:?:
I've lost the line. Where is it? Please provide a link to user's post with such data quoting. And suplicate it by PM with a link to your post please (to allow me to not miss it).
  • 0

#25 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 17 May 2010 - 23:18

Are you joking? Re-read the first page of this thread.

I'm not playing this little game, Han, sorry.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#26 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 17 May 2010 - 23:44

Oookay, that apparently got my beta tester status revoked. Great.

Sorry, but it really looks like (to me) you were "playing dumb" in an attempt to discourage those of us who feel that this flight model issue should be fixed.

NickM posted the figures from the Osprey source within the first few replies of this thread. Did you not notice, or were you just asking me to point it out so that you could refute it somehow?

I'm confused, and frustrated, and about to throw in the towel with all of this.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#27 Pimpin

Pimpin
  • Posts: 1066

Posted 18 May 2010 - 06:29

So is neoqb getting MPH and knots mixed up?
  • 0

#28 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 May 2010 - 12:49

NickM posted the figures from the Osprey source within the first few replies of this thread. Did you not notice, or were you just asking me to point it out so that you could refute it somehow?


NickM quote is from prototype plane ("initial tests"). Production version didnt go 138mph. Game Dolphin is little too slow (that 8km/h or so at 10 000ft) , but nowhere as that. It was slower than SE5a and SPAD.

Also all speeds at altitude are pretty vague as methods of calculting correct speed above 1,5km or so were quite inaccurate (germans methods were little more accurate).
  • 0

#29 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 18 May 2010 - 13:00

Yeah, the Osprey books are not good on accurate technical detail so I am very wary of their comments on its performance. Having said that, the text implies (IIRC) that those speeds were reached by production aircraft being tested in France. I'll check when home tonight. The speed they give is in knots, but I'm not sure if RFC/RAF aircraft used mph or kts? The SE5a ASI is certainly marked as mph (so is the Dolphin's).

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#30 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 May 2010 - 13:10

Yeah, the Osprey books are not good on accurate technical detail so I am very wary of their comments on its performance. Having said that, the text implies (IIRC) that those speeds were reached by production aircraft being tested in France. I'll check when home tonight. The speed they give is in knots, but I'm not sure if RFC/RAF aircraft used mph or kts? The SE5a ASI is certainly marked as mph (so is the Dolphin's).

Cheers,

Nick

It might be that text implies they were production aircraft, but in profile publications they list speeds above 130mph directly to second prototype. Now also there is aerodynamical issue that why Dolphin should go faster than SE5a/SPAD XIII? They had same power but they were heavier and bigger (propably more total drag). Different airscrew could make difference, but then again SE5a /SPAD XIII could have used same, etc….
  • 0

#31 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 18 May 2010 - 15:03

Yeah, the Osprey books are not good on accurate technical detail so I am very wary of their comments on its performance. Having said that, the text implies (IIRC) that those speeds were reached by production aircraft being tested in France. I'll check when home tonight. The speed they give is in knots, but I'm not sure if RFC/RAF aircraft used mph or kts? The SE5a ASI is certainly marked as mph (so is the Dolphin's).

Cheers,

Nick

Damn, guys, I've lost the line.

1. You're using Osprey as source? If yes - please provide a link to the article.
2. There is Dolphin-1 described?
3. There is 120mph or 131mph or 138mph or 120kts noted?

For now all such threads looks like fallen trees after Hurricane - it's near to impossible to find CONCLUSIONS here. I see only furious discussion and can't locate posts with data quoting…

  • 0

#32 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 18 May 2010 - 17:13

The Dolphin 1 is the Dolphin 5F1 isn't it?

Ming
  • 0

#33 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 18 May 2010 - 18:22

I dont have the Osprey data, but this is from profile publications "The Sopwith Dolphin #169"

Attached File  Dolphin Specs.jpg   319.99KB   953 downloads

Now as you can see it doesnt list the speed at 6500ft, but does say 127 MPH at 10,000.
  • 0

#34 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 May 2010 - 20:10

I dont have the Osprey data, but this is from profile publications "The Sopwith Dolphin #169"



Now as you can see it doesnt list the speed at 6500ft, but does say 127 MPH at 10,000.


With almost empty fuel/oil tanks and maybe wihtout ammo (how much 2 vickers weight? And how much ammo for them?). Just check weights ;) It also list 119,5mph with more weight and different airscrew (but with better climb perfomance).
  • 0

#35 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 21 May 2010 - 23:26

I dont have the Osprey data, but this is from profile publications "The Sopwith Dolphin #169"



Now as you can see it doesnt list the speed at 6500ft, but does say 127 MPH at 10,000.
Can't see any data about max speed and sea level for Dolphin Mk.I in this source…
Anyway, first of all I should ask our engineer which airscrew it have - 3800 or 3610.

  • 0

#36 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 22 May 2010 - 00:44

Anyone have info for Lang 3800 and 3610 propellers diameter/pitch right now?
Ive had it in a WS specal (AC props) but its away from me for some time.
  • 0

#37 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 25 May 2010 - 14:41

UP
  • 0

#38 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 25 May 2010 - 14:45

info for Lang 3800 and 3610 propellers diameter/pitch

Noted!

Ming
  • 0

#39 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 30 May 2010 - 10:40

Found this from Hispano-Suiza engines. Notes for squadrons use in the field (September 1918).
Attached File  propellers.jpg   165.84KB   915 downloads
According that 3610 was standard propeller and 3800 alternative.
  • 0

#40 Han

Han
  • Developer
  • Posts: 6670

Posted 02 June 2010 - 17:16

But there is no answer to MAIN question:
Anyone have info for Lang 3800 and 3610 propellers diameter/pitch right now?

  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users