Jump to content

Holtzauge

Members
  • Content Count

    1150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

927 Excellent

1 Follower

About Holtzauge

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1471 profile views
  1. Late this summer I had the opportunity to visit Mikael Carlson's airfield and see his Pfalz D.VIII in flight and also got some interesting information about the handling characteristics of his his Fokker Dr.1. This is now a part of a larger analysis about turn performance that can be found here but I thought I will post it here as well since there is always a lot of talk about the handling of the different aircraft here in-game in FC so it would be interesting to hear forum input on this. As you can see, the Dr.1 we have modeled in the game compares very well with what Mikael has t
  2. Yes, in terms of turn performance it’s basically a draw: Especially in the slightly updated version of the paper (there have been two updates since the first was posted). In the latest version of the paper the Dr.1 is looking slightly better at low level while the Camel retains the upper hand at higher altitudes. In addition, in this latest version there is a new added chapter with info from Mikael Carlson about the handling characteristics of his Dr.1. Would appreciate if you read that as well Chris and let me know if there is more on the Dr.1 handling that should be a
  3. Agreed and and I think most of us do: Just because the paper is a about turn performance does not mean that the paper claims that turn rate is the sole ingredient to salvation. It simply tries to get to the bottom of this performance aspect since there is no historical data on this as opposed to climb and speed data (scanty as it is). In fact the Dr.1 has one very potent advantage over the Camel: Climb rate which also seems to be something the Germans put a premium on since they consistently used lower pitch props than the Entente scouts. And no one is contesting that the Dr.1 was
  4. Yes, I was surprised myself about the results: It turns out that the wing profile drag is of minor importance and the overwhelming part of the drag is still the induced drag (more than 75% IIRC). What really surprised me with the results though was how quickly both the Camel and Dr.1 slow down when you turn them in an instantaneous turn: I discussed this with Mikael Carlson who confirmed it and I’m sure Chill has similar experiences with his Dr.1. Well, you are of course free to brush off the results for this “single maneuver” if you like but seeing that people like Rober
  5. You gentlemen are jumping to conclusions far too quickly! That is of course ONE explanation but there is always the possibility that there are other crazy Swedes out there doing C++ simulations! @Todt_Von_Oben: I have been at work so I have not been able to reply until now but I will try to answer from memory what I remember you posted earlier: First of all a Fokker Dr.1 skid turn has a very low rate of turn and will slow you down even faster than an ordinary turn so maybe a good move to get in a snapshot or throw off the aim of a purs
  6. Wow, 1220 rpm static, that sounds very good indeed! Especially seeing you have the documented Dr.1 propeller with 2.62 diameter x 2.3 m pitch and since the Le Rhone is rated at around 1200 rpm AFAIK getting such high rpm on the chocks indicates you have a very well performing engine indeed! AFAIK a rule of thumb is usually to target around 85% rated rpm static but I don’t know if the Germans in general followed that rule or not for the Dr.1. OTOH, I have seen rpm numbers for the Albatros D.V with the 160 hp Mercedes D.III which is rated at 1400 rpm having circa 1385 rpm in climb an
  7. I think IRL then the seat back armour plate could actually protect even against things as heavy as 50-cal which in a test scenario would cut through like butter. Why? Because aircraft back then had a lot of extra equipment stashed behind the pilot and if an AP round has to pass through these on the way to the plate chances are it had already expended some of its energy and would be tumbling when it made contact with the seat back armour. Another thing I wonder about how it is modeled is the deflection effect: I have seen rounds deflect in-game from skin contact but if they hit at a
  8. Sounds great and looking forward to seeing some BOM data! Congratulations on the Le Rhone acquisition and restoration! Looks and sounds awesome!
  9. @Chill31: What about the Levil BOM? IIRC then you wrote earlier on that you were considering getting one of those? Or have you got one already? Would be fantastic with some solid flight data! For instance the Dr.1 speed issue: How fast does a Dr.1 really go on the deck? Have seen lots of different numbers for that so it will be really interesting if you get the BOM to finally get some solid numbers on that, especially seeing you have what I understand to be the "standard" 2.62 x 2.3 m prop most commonly used.
  10. Nice to see that the "invulnerable" FC dive results for the S.E.5a align so well with the RAE R&M 492 report. So based on this it looks like the Newtonian force modeling is pretty much spot on in-game which is good news indeed. So basically, if we are to believe Cpt. Conningham and the RAE (implicitly as least!), then it's "simply" a question of moving the speeds at which shaking and damage starts to occur to higher levels in-game? I would guess that is very good news indeed since I suspect that fine tuning the aerodynamic force modeling is much harder than changing the stick shaking and
  11. Thanks for doing the testing @unreasonable, in addition I’m of course happy about your calculated terminal speed estimates for the Camel since they in some sense provide an independent confirmation to the C++ simulations which also land in 240 mph region. About the instability, I agree that even if the speed for damage is translated upwards, so should the speed at which the shaking starts. I don’t think it should be removed altogether though since it’s probably even realistic that you may get some stick shaking when you approach damage speeds but notice that none of the pilot accou
  12. Is that you @Monostripezebra? Testing the new 350 hp Oberursel Ur.IIb option for the Dr.1 coming in FC2?
  13. This video clearly shows how overmodeled multiplayer head shake is in-game even on the minimum setting.
  14. I think so too. Would be much better to have an in-game behavior for all the rotaries, Le Rhone, Clerget etc. that all behaved more in line with the Capt. Sykes description for the BR1, i.e. a slight reduction of throttle needed in dives and no problems to go faster than 180 mph in dives. Probably difficult to judge how fast Sykes was going in that vertical dive but I would not be surprised if it was in the 220-240 mph range. However, since we don’t have any IRL numbers on Camel or Dr.1 dives maybe it’s difficult to make a case for that but what we do have a case for IMHO is that power on dive
  15. No apology needed: I think posting the whole story was a good move since you get the story in context.
×
×
  • Create New...