Jump to content

Hellbender

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

357 Excellent

About Hellbender

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Madrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Recent Profile Visitors

700 profile views
  1. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    When your engine catches fire, explodes and violently tears the plane apart, throttle back about 5%.
  2. Hellbender

    We have the F

    I believe you did, yes.
  3. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    That's fair enough. Whether what we have right now (at least in RoF) saw operational status or not, a BMW IIIa engine is more representative of late war overcompression used in German planes than a standard 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa. I would still prefer to have as many engine variants as possible, including for example a Fokker F.I (Dreidecker prototype) with a captured Le Rhone 9J engine, which Werner Voss would fly on his faithful flight. After all, Flying Circus is far more of a combat flightsim than a true study sim (such as DCS) or a historical study with simplified flight models (such as WOFF). In other words: the more variation the better.
  4. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    No idea about an exact number, but very few indeed. It will be the mainstay Fokker D.VII in Flying Circus regardless, as it performs well at altitude, which is what the Fokker D.VII was known for. This is currently not possible with our "early" Fokker D.VII. The Pfalz D.XII never flew with the BMW IIIa engine. It is a (necessary) fiction committed by the Rise of Flight devs as the Pfalz D.XII with a stock 180hp (officially 175hp) D.IIIa engine was performing even worse than the Pfalz D.IIIa with said engine, and I believe they had not yet fully researched the 200hp (officially 180hp) D.IIIau back then. Instead we got the BMW IIIa, which was already present on the Fokker D.VIIF. I've read about those as well, they would have been Albatros license-built deployed in small numbers in April 1918 with the 160hp Mercedes D.III engine. Additionally there were a few 180hp (officially 175hp) Mercedes D.IIIa deployed by Fokker in April and early May (the one available in Flying Circus right now), though the main production Fokker D.VII had already undergone the overcompression engine modification by the time it left the factory.
  5. Hellbender

    We have the F

    Press F to pay respects.
  6. Well, I don't care what she's called, but she is a sleek and sexy monster. You can gradually start applying altitude throttle even at sea level and go full power around 1400m or so. She climbs to 2000m like it's nothing and up there she outshines everything. She dives rather well too as long as you control your speed with a sideslip. Unf!
  7. @Han, you left in a typo: 😁 (there should be a space between Fokker and D.VIIF) Thanks for the quick release, by the way, she's amazing in every way!
  8. Hellbender

    We have the F

    Don't forget to bind the DVIIF altitude throttle. Top speed at sea level with altitude throttle engaged: 208km/h (I was 1 km/h off my prediction of 207km/h).
  9. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    I agree. That said, it shouldn't keep us from making sanity checks when comparing 100-year-old test data. To return to the example of the Sopwith Pup which I mentioned above: while it's not entirely impossible for a 80hp machine to reach 180km/h (especially if climb and acceleration are thrown out the window and a fixed propeller pitch is chosen solely for top cruise speed), it's better to lump all the 80hp machines together at first, then start making clear distinctions in terms of wing surface area, drag coefficient and weight, then compare to actual published data. Then find out there is actually conflicting data. Then somehow get the developers interested in applying corrections. Then finally give up and just wait for the two-seaters to arrive so we can have ourselves a good old flaming scout buffet. Sorry, got a bit carried away there. 😅
  10. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    The Pup in RoF is a strange animal (pun intended). Before 1.034 (the infamous 2014 patch) it was a fast little dragster clocking in at around 180km/h at sea level (official store figure 176km/h). This may seem like a bit of a stretch considering its 80hp Le Rhone 9C, however this is an accepted figure in historical documentation. It's also around 10km/h faster than its French counterpart, the Nieuport 11 (official store figure 167km/h), which has the same engine, similar weight, a somewhat cleaner sesquiplane design, but also an overwing Lewis machinegun causing extra drag. The Nieuport 11 is in turn, marginally faster than the 110hp Nieuport 17 (official store figure 165km/h) — an even cleaner, though slightly heavier design — almost inexplicably so. ...which has led me to believe that there are quite a few errors in both historically published data and data interpretation in RoF. I will list them all: The Pup operated with two different engines, the standard 80hp Le Rhone and a 100hp Gnome Monosoupape, the latter in RNAS service for shipborn use, and where the rather high performance figure of 180km/h may have come from. The Aerodrome actually lists the Sopwith Pup's top speed as a far more realistic 161km/h — which is nowadays also reflected in RoF since the 1.034 update. As such, I consider the Sopwith Pup as it exists today in RoF to be very close to the one which saw service during Bloody April, pitched against a 175-180km/h Albatros D.III. It would not have been a match for either its speed or twin guns at sea level and needed to climb to great altitude to make full use of its light weight, maneuverability and superior rotary engine compression ratio. The Nieuport 11 is also a strange affair, as the actual 11 designation may have been a misnomer. In fact, the term Nieuport Bébé may have been used interchangeably for both the 80hp Nieuport 11 and the 110hp Nieuport 16 (a Bébé with a Nieuport 17 engine). Here the Aerodrome lists its the Nieuport 11's top speed as 156km/h, far more in line with the power output of its 80hp engine. The Nieuport 11 present in RoF is simply put a Nieuport 16. The Aerodrome once again confirms this as its top speed is 165km/h. Finally the Nieuport 17 in RoF is about 10km/h too slow. Owing to the improvements in aerodynamic design over the Nieuport 11/16, it should be faster. Again confirmed by The Aerodrome as 177km/h. This would bring its performance very close to that of Chill's 110hp Fokker Dr.I, which has a similar top speed of 175km/h. In conclusion: RoF Sopwith Pup (pre 1.034) = real world Gnome Monosoupape 100hp Sopwith Pup RoF Sopwith Pup (post 1.034) = real world Le Rhone 9C 80hp Sopwith Pup RoF Nieuport 11 = real world Nieuport 16 Rof Nieuport 17 = 10km/h too slow
  11. I understand why they went with the most popular Camel and Dr.I first, though in the current (moderately) optimistic interpretation of the Camel and (very) pessimistic rendition of the Dr.I, they are not the “romantic dogfighting match” as portrayed by Snoopy fighting the Red Baron. Of course we’re still in early access, but it’s certainly not what most of us were expecting. Bloody April is far less popular in the mainstream, though the Albatros D.II / D.III and Halberstadt D.II match far better against the likes of the Sopwith Pup, Nieuport 11 / 17 and SPAD VII. Most of the Entente pilot losses suffered in Bloody April were due to rushed training and fighting behind enemy lines, rather than inferior machines. Hopefully for Volume 2, I suppose.
  12. The main issue here is that Central has no high altitude recon machines available in Volume I (or in RoF for that matter), which is historically accurate for mid to late 1918. The Halberstadt CL.II can more or less serve this purpose with its 200hp overcompressed engine modification, though it was never really used as such. This was mainly a low altitude reconnaissance, trench attack grenade bomber and escort fighter (escorting itself and other Schlasta machines). The fact that it is equipped with an overcompressed engine is accurate by mid to late 1918 terms, as all Mercedes planes were, but ironically the Central plane in Volume I which needs it the least. What should happen are Entente recon machines flying over Central side at mid to high altitude, of which the Bristol Fighter was one (under certain configurations, as it was mostly an escort fighter). They can then be dived on by Fokker D.VIIF patrolling their own lines at 4000m and above. It’s not exactly the most exciting period of the war (I’m partial to Bloody April 1917), but it’s certainly a precursor to post-war fighter combat.
  13. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    Fokker had always been partial to rotary engines and their excellent power-to-weight and compression ratio making them superb high altitude engines (remember that the humble 80hp Sopwith Pup outperformed the 180hp Albatros D.III at 4000m), as would anyone who designs light planes with clean lines and thick wings. Further proof can be found with the Fokker E.V/D.VIII monoplane. Obviously both the Fokker D.VI and D.VIII had been designed with the Oberursel UR.III in mind, set to replace the obsolescent UR.II — but even with said outdated engine which suffered greatly from the use of Ersatz oil, these machines performed admirably. Idflieg did favour the Mercedes inline engines because of their power and reliability — thus made sure most of them went to actual German manufacturers, rather than a Dutch immigrant. We can see a similar kind of nepotism with the British who favoured the state-run Royal Aircraft Factory over Sopwith and the French who favoured Béchereau/SPAD over Delage/Nieuport and provided them with their best (read: mostly highly rated inline) engines. Still, of the three most advanced (high altitude) fighters to see service in WWI, two were rotaries: the Sopwith Snipe with its massive Bentley BR.II, the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV with its counter-rotary Sh.III, and finally the inline Fokker D.VIIF thanks to the high octane / high altitude carburettor in its BMW IIIa. The only reason rotaries were eventually discontinued was because of the physical limits of a spinning engine block and the development of static radial engines.
  14. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    The Dr.I is an innovative machine in spite of its three wings (very much a political decision). It has internal bracing wires and the outward struts only serve to counter flexing, as the wings are cantilever and more or less of the same thick design as the Fokker D.VII. In that respect, it actually has comparatively small parasite drag. In fact, the plane which Fokker wanted to design would have brought the Dr.I and D.VII together, benefitting from both the superb performance of a rotary engine and the superior efficiency of a biplane. That plane would be known as the Fokker D.VI, and it saw limited service, mostly due to rotary engine problems and shortages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VI
  15. Hellbender

    Fokker D.VIIF?

    And is she looking great already!
×