Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I can almost guarantee you that he was talking about the Yak-1.

 

But I've flown the 7 plenty, thank you.

[TP_Sparky]

Can we agree to quit whingeing about shortcomings in the Dr.1 flight model and vulnerability in Flying Circus when it hasn't occurred, even in Early Access?

 

Don't assume alleged shortcoming in Rise of Flight will mirror in Flying Circus.  If you don't like the FC Dr.1, Early Access is the ideal time to comment [not spelled "complain"] and ask that it conform to some source reference to a/c performance/durability, etc.

[ZachariasX]

 

6 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

Can we agree to quit whingeing about shortcomings in the Dr.1 flight model and vulnerability in Flying Circus when it hasn't occurred, even in Early Access?

Stop whinging? Just like that after all these years?

 

Not before we have modifications like:

 

-Ersatz lubricant / freshly hunted castor oil

-Oberursel / good Gnome-Rhone / old Gnome-Rhone 

(all for which to unlock you have to shoot a respective Camel for)

 

That would be a more fair way to get the old clowncar back. Shoot a Camel fag with your nerf Dr.I, then you get to unlock the clowncar. And remember, one Camel fag can only provide one sortie of the clowncar. In expert settings, you could further refine that by taking remaining fuel in the Camelfag into account. So if you shot down another one of those basically flying on fumes, you may not get more than a cup of the organic stuff.

 

On MP servers, one could have a function to collect and pool the good stuff for allowing an individual having a plane that he/she thinks is „good/right“

 

 

Besides, if they really made things correct and reduced lift to what it is and tune down energy retention in in a boom and zoom accordingly, many vocal enthusiasts will scream bloody murder anyway. (Just take a Cap 10 or a Bücker in the vertical and you‘ll see. Even when a similar engine is installed.)

Edited June 30, 2018 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

Camel fag? Clowncar? Z have you been smoking the good stuff again?

 

We have talked about lift before: if the level flight speed is correct (OK, I know in RoF it usually is not) and the weight is correct the lift must be correct. What might be off is the drag: I suspect all the BoX planes are too slick, but that is only going off one example where we have low power settings and speeds to compare.  It would not surprise me if the RoF were no different. 

 

FM section of FC is going to be so much fun, however the game works out.   

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

FM section of FC is going to be so much fun, however the game works out.   

Will be fun

 

And yes, you are right about basic lift of the airfoils in straight flight, but as soon as you go in turns these crates bleed a lot of energy. In RoF, you can loop the AC from just normal cruise flight by yanking the stick back. If you ever try his with a 120 hp AC, you'll be in for a bad surprise.

 

I found it very instructive how Chill31 tuned the Neoqb Dr.I to match is personal Dr.I. And indeed, you get a faster aircraft (than the last iteration of the Dr.I) but in now way you are able to keep it hanging on the prop like that. Once your speed is bled, you'll start to drop like a piano. As any 120 hp aircraft will do.

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Camel fag? Clowncar? Z have you been smoking the good stuff again? 

Nah, flashback.

[Garven]

While the camel fags and clowncar drivers duke it out I'll be out Foncking in my  SPAD XIII  By the looks of BoX damage model one pass high speed ambush kills look like they will be easier.

Edited June 30, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[ZachariasX]

10 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

While the camel fags and clowncar drivers duke it out I'll be out Foncking in my  SPAD XIII  By the looks of BoX damage model one pass high speed ambush kills look like they will be easier.

You'll be foncked in your SPAD should you run into a clowncar.

 

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

FM section of FC is going to be so much fun, however the game works out.   

Speaking of, you know, while it is true that at equal speeds and weight planes have the same amount of lift. HOWEVER, if a wing is modelled with excessive lift, you would... simply fly at a reduced AoA... requiring a lot of downward elevator. Let me think... where do we see that? hmm... (Just teasing... )

[Garven]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

You'll be foncked in your SPAD should you run into a clowncar.

 

Speaking of, you know, while it is true that at equal speeds and weight planes have the same amount of lift. HOWEVER, if a wing is modelled with excessive lift, you would... simply fly at a reduced AoA... requiring a lot of downward elevator. Let me think... where do we see that? hmm... (Just teasing... )

Naw I'll just dive away and wait for an opportunity when they aren't paying attention.

[unreasonable]

17 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

Speaking of, you know, while it is true that at equal speeds and weight planes have the same amount of lift. HOWEVER, if a wing is modelled with excessive lift, you would... simply fly at a reduced AoA... requiring a lot of downward elevator. Let me think... where do we see that? hmm... (Just teasing... )

 

Where you see that is in real SE5as.  Like real Spitfires, they "want" to nose up far more than the game versions. Is this  a lift issue though, or more a CG issue?

 

Also re your comments about looping and low powered engines: a Cessna 172, for instance, has a HP/lb of about 0.065: a Camel about 0.09.  Same with the wing loading: Camels have less than half.  So comparing the best WW1 scouts with modern low power aircraft is misleading: the old scouts were extraordinarily light, with no namby-pamby safety equipment.  My main concern with the RoF FMs in general was always the roll control authority when prop-hanging, which I found implausibly good, not the ability to loop.  

 

Anyway, we shall see what how the FC planes turn out.   I suppose I may have to pre-order just to see what the rage threads are about.... 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

51 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I suppose I may have to pre-order just to see what the rage threads are about.... 

C'mon. We'll order anyway.

[Garven]

55 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Anyway, we shall see what how the FC planes turn out.   I suppose I may have to pre-order just to see what the rage threads are about.... 

 

 

Make sure to bring plenty of popcorn.

[ZachariasX]

Just now, US103_Furlow said:

Make sure to bring plenty of popcorn. 

And Xanax for the moderators.

[TP_Sparky]

There's infinite difference between a light civil training/utility aircraft and a WWI fighter.  I've flown fast movers and multi-engine transports, airliners and ragwing taildraggers.  The Cessna 172 handles like an arthritic aged cow.  I'm not insulting you.  It just does.  You can't translate any aspect of flying a Cessna 172 to flying a 1917 or 1918 front-line fighter.Aside from statistics like wing loading and power to weight there are vast differences in lateral and longitudinal and rotational instability, especially with rotary engines *cough* Camel*cough*. 

 

Instability has its virtues in responsiveness and agility.  Many Great War a/c bought their agility with aerodynamics that had vicious slow-speed handling and no-warning stall departures that made turn-fighting and take-off and landing approaches deadly.  The aerodynamics of modern a/c from the 1920's through the present day cause the wing to stall from the root outward so the ailerons maintain authority well into the stall and the disturbed airflow over the wing root causes 'stick shake' to let you know you're riding the edge of the flight envelope.  Your Great War fighter, depending on design, could depart from controlled flight without warning if you flew uncoordinated or let airspeed decrease.

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

And yes, you are right about basic lift of the airfoils in straight flight, but as soon as you go in turns these crates bleed a lot of energy. In RoF, you can loop the AC from just normal cruise flight by yanking the stick back. If you ever try his with a 120 hp AC, you'll be in for a bad surprise.

 

 

56 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

There's infinite difference between a light civil training/utility aircraft and a WWI fighter.  I've flown fast movers and multi-engine transports, airliners and ragwing taildraggers.  The Cessna 172 handles like an arthritic aged cow.  I'm not insulting you.  It just does.  You can't translate any aspect of flying a Cessna 172 to flying a 1917 or 1918 front-line fighter.Aside from statistics like wing loading and power to weight there are vast differences in lateral and longitudinal and rotational instability, especially with rotary engines *cough* Camel*cough*. 

 

This.

 

I've found this out for myself learning to fly the Piper Cherokee (140hp), the Ford Fiesta of the sky.

 

At first I couldn't believe how "wrong" Rise of Flight is, and that flying in real life really feels "on rails", exactly like it does in FSX. But really, those planes are built for positive static/dynamic stability and training safety. They can't really teach you much about stick and rudder flying, the Piper might as well not have pedals at all.

[TP_Sparky]

51 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

 

 

 

This.

 

I've found this out for myself learning to fly the Piper Cherokee (140hp), the Ford Fiesta of the sky.

 

At first I couldn't believe how "wrong" Rise of Flight is, and that flying in real life really feels "on rails", exactly like it does in FSX. But really, those planes are built for positive static/dynamic stability and training safety. They can't really teach you much about stick and rudder flying, the Piper might as well not have pedals at all.

 

That's a charming Tripe quote by the Sopwith pilot.  I don't know even the basic memoirs.  What's that selection from.  It's going to the top of my reading list.  

 

I haven't flown real a/c regularly in decades but I found I can fly LSA without having a new medical and I tried an Evektor Sportstar.  It's ground handling and brakes were toy-like but it has a bubble canopy and a stick and once in the air it's delightful.  It's utterly unlike the Cessna and Piper utility/trainer craft.  It rolls like a fighter (within it's non-aerobatic limits) and feels wonderful but the students keep breaking it so that it's never "up" for me to fly.

 

So yes, you might have 140/180/220+ horses in your light civilian a/c but it's nothing like flying a pursuit ship of 1917-18.

[unreasonable]

7 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

There's infinite difference between a light civil training/utility aircraft and a WWI fighter.  I've flown fast movers and multi-engine transports, airliners and ragwing taildraggers.  The Cessna 172 handles like an arthritic aged cow.  I'm not insulting you.  It just does.  You can't translate any aspect of flying a Cessna 172 to flying a 1917 or 1918 front-line fighter.Aside from statistics like wing loading and power to weight there are vast differences in lateral and longitudinal and rotational instability, especially with rotary engines *cough* Camel*cough*. 

 

Instability has its virtues in responsiveness and agility.  Many Great War a/c bought their agility with aerodynamics that had vicious slow-speed handling and no-warning stall departures that made turn-fighting and take-off and landing approaches deadly.  The aerodynamics of modern a/c from the 1920's through the present day cause the wing to stall from the root outward so the ailerons maintain authority well into the stall and the disturbed airflow over the wing root causes 'stick shake' to let you know you're riding the edge of the flight envelope.  Your Great War fighter, depending on design, could depart from controlled flight without warning if you flew uncoordinated or let airspeed decrease.

 

 

 

Also on the point of instability - there was a magazine article a while ago about a group of people who fly WW1 replicas (I think in 7/8 scale) at airshows. One of the things they mentioned was that they had to be extremely careful to maintain altitude in pretend dogfights since the propwash/wake of an aircraft in front was sufficiently turbulent, and the critical AoA so close to that of normal flight, that wake turbulence could cause an immediate partial stall leading to the plane flipping on it's back.  IIRC the Dr1 was particularly dangerous in this respect. 

 

I will try to find the article - may not succeed with dozens of magazines all in a heap.

 

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

C'mon. We'll order anyway.

 

Yes I know...  just my slight protest at MP bias and lack of 2-seaters to shoot down and the postage stamp map.

[TP_Sparky]

21 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

...there was a magazine article a while ago about a group of people who fly WW1 replicas ....I will try to find the article ....

 

I'd be interested if you find it.

 

I'll be happy with whatever map size we get.  Remember, Flying Circus is a semi-independent labor of love like Tank Crew by a bunch of crazies going above and beyond the call of duty to create a new product for us while the main BoBp retains priority.  Give them more slack than the Trans-Atlantic cable.    ?  More content and maps will follow as night follows day. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

I'd be interested if you find it.

 

I'll be happy with whatever map size we get.  Remember, Flying Circus is a semi-independent labor of love like Tank Crew by a bunch of crazies going above and beyond the call of duty to create a new product for us while the main BoBp retains priority.  Give them more slack than the Trans-Atlantic cable.    ?  More content and maps will follow as night follows day. 

 

I will have a look... no promises.

 

I fear there may be a bit of a catch 22 about FC: it will only be developed with new maps etc if it sells reasonably well, but in it's currently advertised form it has little to recommend it to anyone except the MP furball crowd. So some SP only players will not buy. I probably will because I can easily afford it, but I wonder if it would not have been better to go for a larger map from the beginning: after all, with very little modification a WW1 western front map of the most active area (Belgium and France down to Verdun) can be used for WW2 scenarios too. Adding a 2-seater on each side would make the prospect of SP much more appealing.

 

Similar concern about TC actually: without some improvement in the combined arms aspect - and I am not advocating individual infantrymen running around - it looks as though it is in danger of becoming a GuP simulation for co-op MP.

 

I know Jason is a smart fellow, so I keep an open mind about the SP future. But given what we have been told about these two titles so far, I would not buy either of them as games, although I will as technical demos, for want of a better term.

[SeaW0lf]

8 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

What's that selection from.  It's going to the top of my reading list.  

 

The selection is from "Sopwith Triplane - Aces of World War I" - page 66. Might be in another book as well, since some of these quotes come from another researcher.

Edited July 1, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, Hellbender said:

 

 

 

Would be interesting to know how much altitude he lost doing so.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Would be interesting to know how much altitude he lost doing so.

 

He did not say that he had to put it into a dive to loop, just to throttle 3/4 and wind the tail for it to loop indefinitely. Then I saw that the quote is from the book Sagittarius Rising [Cecil Lewis]. I checked to compare and there is a correction in the original (Kindle); He says "the Tripe would loop, hands off, indefinitely". Does not sound like he is droping to the ground.

 

 

 

There is another accout regarding the maiden flight of the Triplane: The prototype Triplane, serial N500, first flew on 28 May 1916, with Sopwith test pilot Harry Hawker at the controls. Within three minutes of takeoff, Hawker startled onlookers by looping the aircraft three times in succession.

Edited July 1, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

53 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

He did not say that he had to put it into a dive to loop, just to throttle 3/4 and wind the tail for it to loop indefinitely.

We better take that as figurative speech.

[Dakpilot]

People were doing 80 consecutive loops in 1913/14 (If I remember US pilot Beachey) the Female pilot record was  930! by Laura Ingalls around 1930, sounds almost indefinite ? I think I would tire long before that number 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

We better take that as figurative speech.

 

Oh, boy, I found this in the same book. Check Dakpilot post as well.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Oh, boy, I found this in the same book. Check Dakpilot post as well.

 

 

Good old times where you just could pull off things like that without getting into serious trouble by the FAA.

 

That aside, the first example you gave was looping controlled by trim. This is something else than a „controlled“ loop. The examples given by Dak are not this. If you loop by use of trim, you don‘t ease up the pull sufficiently for a round loop, this is why it will exit this „flip“ lower than when you started. I was interested in this loss of altitude, as it would give you more of an idea of the speed loss over the top.

 

The other quote really requires a very specific skill set and plane configuration. How much speed did he get before doing the loop? No idea, he was just the cool SOB that could pull it off. Thus, it is nothing but another nice story. You know, there are people than could pull off impressive things with a Cessna that would kill most other pilots as well.

[Garven]

I doubt they were doing stunts with a plane carrying a combat load.

[SeaW0lf]

If you think, he said that he used 3/4 throttle. He could always go balls to the walls in some real combat maneuvers. He also did not specify if he was just stunting or just practicing above the airfield, which then I assume he would be carrying combat loads.

 

There are so many variables... Why not simply stop conjecturing and accept the reality that these later WWI planes were no slouches? Why always try to water down sound arguments by people who generally bring good info (I'm not talking about myself)? Why always have this troll attitude based on conjectures or loop arguments?

 

Then someone by chance finds that some of these stunts were carried with full load and then people are going to say "I bet the guy weighted 100 pounds". And this vicious troll circle is endless, people get pissed off and the thread gets locked.

 

Good on you guys. Well done.

[Garven]

Dude, you need thicker skin.  If these stunts were done with full load then my skepticism is simply misplaced.  

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Good on you guys. Well done.

You really need to relax a bit here. We are not your enemy, nor are the developpers.

 

I'm just pointing out some facts here.

 

First of all, nobody said that (I suppose you mean the Dr.I) WWI fighters are "slouches". Even though flying an actual Morane Parasol for an hour or so might recalibrate some general feelings there.

 

But certainly nobody said that this

Spoiler

 

is a dog.

 

However, the stroy is not as rosy as you put it. If I asked you to do that "loop after takeoff stunt with that Dr.I, would you do it? I actually think it might theoretically be possible. On the other hand, all the guy that did that with the Camel, all he had between himself and being turned into fertilizer is not even half a wingspan distance. You might consider such a takeoff a basic feature of those aircraft, but I'm sure you folks would be less enthusiastic about you trying it.

 

That said, my main point is that you simply CANNOT add wing area and take give profile for a biplane or worse triplane and throw that in as simulator that in fact simulates a monoplane. The "combined" wing will be different aerodynamically from a single wing. And it will be LESS EFFICIENT. The more wings you have, the worse it gets. And this has absolutely nothing to do with handling qualities of an aircraft. Not at all.

 

It has been proven over and over again that the triplane arangement is is not as efficient as a monoplane. For instance here:

https://www.docdroid.net/ZfGaV8E/what-the-red-baron-never-knew.pdf

This is not a conspiracy against you, it is basic aerodynamics.

 

Thus, if the sim takes the Dr.I as a monoplane, you have to tune it down a bit. How much you have to do that, you can for instance see in one way in Chill31's interpretation. You have installed the Neoqb Dr.I in FSX, and I would be surprised if you handn't installed his *.air file to have a reflection of what he thinks corresponds to his Dr.I. I don't understand why this one is absolutely no topic to you at all. There's everything in it that FM that adresses the points mentined in the article above.

 

The Dr.I's design does have some clear limitations through its design faults. It's ok that you think the Dr.I is top of the pop, but the Germans didn't. At least the ones that really mattered. They made few of them and pulled it from service for good reasons. No matter how pretty it is and ho wdelightful to fly it might be. It is not the only aircraft of the era incorporating serious sesign flaws. They were all on a learing curve there. And it certainly gives the aircraft their charm. But that the Dr.I cannot outSPAD a SPAD and this is not just a problem of the glue. And the game ultimately should reflect this.

 

So far, the devs have proven that they are stellar in implementing FM for aircraft they have never flown themselves. I am convinced that with FC they will not hand us something from the old times. Also the devs are on a learning curve and I am convinced we will profit from that.

 

So, for your own sake, relax a bit. And you are most welcome to post good info and we'll be happy to read that.

 

 

 

[bzc3lk]

The initial climb rate on this thing really surprised me at 2.05.

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

 

So here a quote of Camels at the front [Sopwith Camel, by Jon Guttman]:

 

 

 

And then from Sopwith Pup Aces of World War 1:

 

 

 

And then from Sopwith Camel Aces of World War 1:

 

 

 

And then from Gould Lee and No Parachute:

 

 

 

 

And then researching the ROF forum and the internet, it baffles me that someone who flies ROF and had a bit of experience in the game doesn't believe a Camel or a Tripe could loop from level flight. It is just amazing.

 

28 minutes ago, bzc3lk said:

The initial climb rate on this thing really surprised me at 2.05.

 

Nice replica by the way.

 

At this one he cuts the engine a couple times before the climb at 4:55... So it is like hitting the breaks before pulling up. On 2:40 he's on level flight and pulls up like crazy. The whole video is interesting. He does not loop completely (he might fear for the frame), but he does a lot of cool manouvers and the aeroplane seems to have a lot of torque. He might be doing the whole thing at 1100rpm.

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Thus, if the sim takes the Dr.I as a monoplane, you have to tune it down a bit. How much you have to do that, you can for instance see in one way in Chill31's interpretation. You have installed the Neoqb Dr.I in FSX, and I would be surprised if you handn't installed his *.air file to have a reflection of what he thinks corresponds to his Dr.I. I don't understand why this one is absolutely no topic to you at all. There's everything in it that FM that adresses the points mentined in the article above.

 

The Dr.I's design does have some clear limitations through its design faults. It's ok that you think the Dr.I is top of the pop, but the Germans didn't. At least the ones that really mattered. They made few of them and pulled it from service for good reasons. No matter how pretty it is and ho wdelightful to fly it might be. It is not the only aircraft of the era incorporating serious sesign flaws. They were all on a learing curve there. And it certainly gives the aircraft their charm. But that the Dr.I cannot outSPAD a SPAD and this is not just a problem of the glue. And the game ultimately should reflect this.

 

The Fokker Dr.I was a revolutionary design, but in spite of its three wings, not because of them.

 

The NASA history of aviation article covers this very well:

 

Although inspired by the Sopwith triplane, the Fokker Dr.-1 bore it no resemblance except for the three wings. The Sopwith employed a conventional strut-and-wire-braced wing arrangement, whereas the Fokker had no wire bracing between the wings and only a single strut connecting the lifting surfaces near the tips. These struts were intended to reduce wing vibration and flexing at high speed and did not materially contribute to the static strength of the structure. Interestingly, the first Fokker triplane flew without any interplane struts at all. The wings themselves were cantilever; that is, they obtained their strength entirely from internal bracing. The radical departure of the Fokker Dr.-1 structure from contemporary aircraft design concepts was made possible by the use of wing airfoil sections much thicker than usual at the time. The mistaken notion that low wing drag could only be obtained with thin airfoil sections has been mentioned previously. The Fokker triplane and subsequent Fokker designs proved the incorrectness of the thin wing concept.

 

[...]

 

The triplane fighter of World War I must be considered as something of an aberration in the course of aeronautical development. The design trade-offs and reasoning underlying the concept of such an aircraft are nowhere adequately explained in any of the reference documents. However, one might speculate along the following lines: For a given wing span and area, the effective aspect ratio (related to the drag associated with the production of lift) of a triplane is higher than that of a biplane or monoplane. Or, for a given aspect ratio, the span of a triplane can be less than that of a biplane or monoplane of the same wing area. Thus, the rolling inertia of the triplane can be less than that of a biplane or monoplane. Greater maneuverability might, therefore, be obtainable with a triplane configuration. Further, the triplane allows the wing area to be divided among three relatively narrow-chord wings, which may be arranged relative to the aircraft center of gravity in such a way as to provide the pilot with better visibility than could be achieved with a comparable biplane. Finally, for a given level of longitudinal stability, the physical distance between the wings and the tail may be reduced on a triplane as compared with a biplane.

 

In other words: what the British did with the Sopwith Triplane was indeed a flawed experiment, and it ended up being not much more than a Sopwith Pup with an extra wing it didn't need and a more powerful engine. A Camel with three wings, if you will. The Pup had by itself already been a formidable foe to the German Albatros fighters, especially at high altitude. The early success of the Triplane led to Idflieg's panic reaction in ordering triplane design from all its manufacturers. Reinhold Platz' triplane for Fokker would ultimately give him the needed breakthroughs for his Fokker D.VII biplane, and the superlative Fokker D.VIII (E.V) monoplane, which sadly never managed to realise its full potential due to German castor oil shortages and the use of Ersatz lubricants.

 

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm

[ZachariasX]

37 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

The Fokker Dr.I was a revolutionary design, but in spite of its three wings, not because of them.

Fokker corrected that himself in the D.VI, by dumping the center wing. In total, it has about 1 m2 less wing area than the Dr.I.

 

If some are under the impression that I imply the „post patch“ Dr.I being the desirable state, that is a no. That is not what you would get if you reduce max. total lift.

 

If you reduce lift to take wing arrangement into account (lift reduction is also AoA dependent, almost none of the maneuveing abilities are impaired, and you can still fly it at very high AoA. But what you will less see is a bunch of Dr.I that are standing on their tails like a bunch of kois in a pond during feeding time.

[Zooropa_Fly]

All this technical stuff aside..

These 'early access' releases are a bit quick imo. 8 months or so is a long time to have to play with 2 planes while waiting for the rest of the game.

But I'll still be there asap.

 

I was hoping for maybe a Camel and an Alby, Spad and Dr1 don't make for much of a dogfight together.

I've seen RoF Dr1 Jockeys wanting Spads banned ! (not that I'm sympathetic to that of course).

 

S!

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Fokker corrected that himself in the D.VI, by dumping the center wing. In total, it has about 1 m2 less wing area than the Dr.I.

 

If some are under the impression that I imply the „post patch“ Dr.I being the desirable state, that is a no. That is not what you would get if you reduce max. total lift.

 

If you reduce lift to take wing arrangement into account (lift reduction is also AoA dependent, almost none of the maneuveing abilities are impaired, and you can still fly it at very high AoA. But what you will less see is a bunch of Dr.I that are standing on their tails like a bunch of kois in a pond during feeding time.

 

All RoF planes can stand on their tails like a bunch of kois during feeding time - even the AI does it all the time. I am convinced that this is because people - and the AI -  have learned that they can maintain fine directional control and adjust heading to make difficult shots even as their airspeed bleeds to zero. Make the ailerons ineffective at very low speeds and this would go away.

Interesting as your Dr.1 link is, it is not relevant to the specific point of contention: namely the ability to loop.   It is about how and why biplane and triplane wings failed structurally.  If planes have the right level flight speed at the right AoA and weight, they have the right total lift, end of story. (At least until they lose all or part of a wing.... see the upcoming "Dr.1 FM and DM bugs thread".    )  

 

I think what happened during WW2 is that designers gradually realized that they had underestimated the importance of speed versus turning ability, probably under the influence of pilots. There is no use being able to turn on a sixpence if your scouts cannot intercept enemy 2-seaters.  Realizing that, stripping out extra wings becomes desirable even if it means requiring a slightly higher Vmin and slower turn times, since it allows for higher speed by reducing drag even with the same engines.   

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

There is no use being able to turn on a sixpence if your scouts cannot intercept enemy 2-seaters.

Oh yeah.

 

Some musings on this:

 

Dr.I first. So, according th this, the Dr.I features an engine running at max. 1200 rpm and it features a prop with 2.62 m diameter and a pitch of (just) 2.3 m. This means that @1'200 rpm, the aircraft goes 46 m/s or 165.6 km/h theoretical max speeed.

 

While it may be possible that the aircraft is a tad slower than prop pitch, it usually matches that rather precisely. What is impossible however is that the crate goes faster than the prop pitch. So that is the Dr.I.: 165.6 km/h. You want to go faster, you crank the engine to 1'300 rpm, then it will go 179.4 km/h as a theoretical maximum.

 

Let's look at the furry one. The Clerget of Camel was AFAIK (corrections are welcome indeed) fitted with a diameter of 2.59 m and a pitch of 2.65 m. This means, if the Clerget is also run at 1'200 rpm, the aircraft theoretically travels at 53 m/s, or at 190.8 km/h.

 

It is clear why the Dr.I drastically outclimbs the Camel when using such a prop. But that must come at a high price in terms of speed.Should the Camel indeed be stuck at the same flight speed than the Dr.I 8at similar rpm), then Thomas Sopwith clearly put on a worng propeller. If it used the same flat one as the Dr.I, it would still be as slow, but it could climb much better.

 

Taken together, in order for the Dr.I to catch a "one of the mil" Camel, it is... difficult. Looking at a Bistol F2 Fighter that is said to go 198 km/h @ 1'500 m, things look bleak indeed. Same as for the DH-4.

 

Oh my, this is gonna be so much fun

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

namely the ability to loop. 

 

I'm convinced it does loop just fine.

Edited July 2, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Garven]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

And then researching the ROF forum and the internet, it baffles me that someone who flies ROF and had a bit of experience in the game doesn't believe a Camel or a Tripe could loop from level flight. It is just amazing.

Stop making things up.  Never said I thought they couldn't loop from level flight.  I just have my doubts they could gain altitude while doing it with a full combat load.

Edited July 2, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

namely the ability to loop.

 

From here:

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/flight.htm

 

A replica with a tail wheel and wheel brakes (!) and a Warner 165 rotary. Kinda the same in dimesnio and weight NOT a rotary (aircooled radial) and more powerful than the Clerget.

 

So someone like this: "Bear in mind that the following comments are from the perspective of private pilots with 600 hours flying time. We do not consider ourselves experienced in aerobatics and we stick to the basics." says the following about his Tripe:

 

Regarding nose up and flight attitude:

 

"The Triplane tends to fly tail heavy and increasing speed requires lots of forward stick to hold the nose down~ It appears as if the effective center of drag is above the thrust line so the faster you go the more elevator correction is needed to hold the nose down. This is somewhat of an explanation for the familiar "tuck" position of the Triplane at high speed. The horizontal stabilizer is rigged at a plus 90 (leading edge high) but even with this forward stick pressure is needed as speed increases. The high lift wing airfoil shape really wants to pull the plane up. All the wings are rigged at 11/20 angle of incidence."

 

Ok, much forward stick. I believe you. Just how much "much"...

 

And now, loop:

 

Loops — Loops are easy and fun in a Triplane. From cruise condition drop the nose to pick up 110 to 115 mph entry speed. A smooth back pressure of 3 G’s produces an amazingly tight loop. With the high drag, it is very easy to control it on the down side coming out. Caution: Keep the ball in the center or it can really come out of the loop cockeyed.

 

So you do actally better increase speed from cruise speed. Seems to be very straightforwrad and similar to other aircraft of that power and weight. No sekrits here. Doing that from 70 mph and pulling into a loop would probably not give a loop, but rather some other maneuver.

[SeaW0lf]

22 hours ago, US103_Furlow said:

I doubt they were doing stunts with a plane carrying a combat load.

 

You bit your own tongue, didn't you? And gave me a lot of work to gather a reply with several quotes, hence why I mentioned how trolling is toxic.

[Garven]

On 7/2/2018 at 12:10 PM, SeaW0lf said:

 

You bit your own tongue, didn't you? And gave me a lot of work to gather a reply with several quotes, hence why I mentioned how trolling is toxic.

How exactly did I bite my own tongue.  Never did I say I they couldn't loop.  I simply said I doubt they had a full load since the guy gained ten feet at the end of the loop that was done right after takeoff.  I also have my doubts that the tripe could loop continuously without loosing some altitude.  Stop inserting things into what I said and then tell me that is what I meant.  Go ahead report me if I'm trolling.

Edited July 4, 2018 by US103_Furlow
Needed to include the tripe