Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, US103_Furlow said:

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.  Stop inserting things into what I said and then tell me that is what I meant.  Go ahead report me if I'm trolling.

 

You wrote they as in the general quotes we were posting. So, yes, you were not talking about the very specific case of the Camel that gained some feet on the loop. Why not just say "I was wrong"?

[Gambit21]

Wolf - you need to calm down a bit dude.

[SeaW0lf]

17 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Wolf - you need to calm down a bit dude.

 

Like I said, for who researches comments like "I bet he had a big head and the drag would refrain him from maneuvering" is not just a silly comment, is a water down comment that makes you go round the internet and your books all over again to prove that "the guy did not have a big head".

 

And it was not just him / I was not talking about him singly. And it is not an isolate case. Some people have a profile of making those comments to water down people's research. You don't have to go far. In this same forum there are many pages of discussion just because some people make these silly arguments round and round again. And many threads get blocked by that / or just gets bogged down, and information that could be useful gets lost in the mud. 

 

If you think a big head would create drag, you need bring information to the table the same way some of us bring. Then we can discuss. The sort of "I bet he weighed 100 pounds" brings nothing.

 

Understand my point? Because then let the troll quotes rule, because that's what it does.

Edited July 2, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[Garven]

Stop exaggerating what I said to be the equivalent of someones head causing too much drag.  1000rnds of .303 weighs  58lbs plus a full 44 gallon tank of fuel in a camel weighs 264lbs.  Hardly insignificant.

[ZachariasX]

The head argument, as sill y as it is, is actually pretty funny and made me tihnk of this:

 

Depending on the head, it looks like ther could be significant drag. Seeing Clarkson trying bo "board" a Dr.I would probably be equally funny. Hammond on the other hand probably had enough space in there to ask May to join him to mansplain him the crate.

[DD_Arthur]

6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

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.

 

Eh?  Thats not how early access works Zooropa.  We now know what the first two planes to be released are but the others will be released in a steady stream over the following months.

 

We won't have to wait too long before we have more than just the DR1 and Spad to play with.

 

The big question is whether SeaWolf will be able to last that long or will he go the way of the Oozlum bird before early access is complete.  

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

The head argument, as sill y as it is, is actually pretty funny and made me tihnk of this:

 

Depending on the head, it looks like ther could be significant drag. Seeing Clarkson trying bo "board" a Dr.I would probably be equally funny. Hammond on the other hand probably had enough space in there to ask May to join him to mansplain him the crate.

 

Much less drag if he closes his mouth, not that he is capable of that.  (JC that is, not SeaW0lf).   Perhaps he gets most of it back as a ramjet effect like a P-51 radiator?   

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

7 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

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

 

S!

 

?

[HagarTheHorrible]

I find the DR1 a curious bird, philosophically it's a British aircraft, a King of the hill, bare-knuckle bruiser, not a German aircraft at all.  I suspect many of the rotaries were light on the nose and needed holding down on the joystick as speed increased, something that was difficult to correct without causing overbalance issues with the elevator, simply a result of the desire for low weight, high lift with limited power available. I read an interesting article about flying the Shuttleworth Pup some time ago (can't find it, unfortunately) but the one overriding impression was the pilot saying he had to push the joystick almost all the way to the dashboard to maintain level flight, I expect decent in these aircraft was usually a more leisurely affair with reduced power/speed rather than balls to the wall screaming demon.  I don't think the Camel was overly dangerous, to its pilots, or at least no more than the DR1 it's just that the Camel was flown en-mass by badly trained and inexperienced pilots with little understanding of why it did what it did whereas the DR1 was selectively flown by more experienced pilots and not by the hoi paloy.  I do wonder which of the two would have had the edge in combat, the DR1 could fly closer to the edge, more confidently, because of it's thick wing, but then the Camel had a slight speed but maybe, more importantly, a power advantage but also more wing area that more effectively created lift but then, of course, the extra drag of bracing wires etc may have cancelled that out, it's difficult to say.  The DR1 should really be nothing more than dog food for late war, inline engined fast movers with half decent tactics and a semi-competent pilot. 

 

That's my thoughts, supported by nothing more than reading lots and gaining lots of insights from flying more hours in RoF than I'd like to count.

 

I also find the head-scratching about the SE5a armament configuration perplexing as well, it seems perfectly logical to me (not that anyone has mentioned it in this thread),  the Lewis was there for two reasons, 1) it was a lightweight emergency back up for the Vickers, if it jammed, and 2) it was primarily there for the specific purpose of taking out high flying two seaters, being pulled back on the slider and fired at 45 deg up into the belly of the opponent.  It was never meant as a purely second gun placed in an awkward difficult to manage position.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Less speed doesn't make it 'dog food'. Even less when it has superiour climb and turn rate.

 

Tacticly I would rate it more as an interceptor rather than air superiority fighter (that title goes undoubtedly to the Se.5)

[TP_Sparky]

And this was a thread on what people thought should be the aircraft set for Flying Circus.  

 

Not to rudely get back on topic but I'd still prefer the Breguet XIV rather than the Dolphin.  The Dolphin just equipped four RAF squadrons by war's end while the Breguet XiV equipped over 70 French squadrons plus many US and Allied squadrons.  We need more two-seaters for the bomber boys and more French a/c.  Win, win.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Completely agreed on the Breguet.

[HagarTheHorrible]

9 hours ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

Less speed doesn't make it 'dog food'. Even less when it has superiour climb and turn rate.

 

Tacticly I would rate it more as an interceptor rather than air superiority fighter (that title goes undoubtedly to the Se.5)

 

Interceptor an odd choice of word for what was probably one of the slowest mainstream scouts, I think it is instructive that, after having pioneered single aircraft squadrons, that the DR1's flew in mixed aircraft groups, Albie's to catch and break up enemy flights DR1's to catch up and cut them to pieces.

 

Turn rate was desirable but a great deal of emphasis seems to have been placed on climb rate.  Once engaged, holding altitude in a turn or better still, staying out of harm's way, by out climbing your opponent, pretty much one and the same unless facing several opponents in a close in a knife fight.  I think the DR1 was a clear exponent of this concept with its slow forward speed but steep angle of climb, it was designed to close with the enemy and then outturn, in an era of tight turning aircraft, but primarily outclimb them, while doing so, to gain positional superiority once engaged.  However as even Germanys, possibly most gifted pilot discovered, (Voss) it was always at the mercy of well handled, faster, better diving, inline engined, scouts

 

Any notions I have are purely my own and might (probably) be utter garbage ?

[ZachariasX]

12 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I think the DR1 was a clear exponent of this concept with its slow forward speed but steep angle of climb

I don't think Fokker was deliberately making a slow fighter. At the time the Dr.I was conceived, most enemy planes it enountered were still Pups and Quirks. And the Dr.I could surely "out-Pup" a Pup. The fast SPADS were faster anyway, there was no way you could make a rotary engine fighter being able to outrun them. But then outclimbing them is a great idea, as the speed differential is in any case within the possibilities of catching the opponent in a dive. But in late 1917 even twin seaters could fly high and fast enough to negate any chance of meaningful interception, something a D.VII was much better at.

 

As for the actual planeset for FC I, i think the current set is not a bad choice. They surely must have stack ranked upon popularity, and late war fighters are always preferred there over pretty much anything. And we need these initial sales to do well in order to get the rest. My hope is that for the next iteration, this will be a bit more bomber focused. It makes sense to just transfer everything from RoF to FC, but then, more French Bombers such as Caudrons and Salmsons would be great.

[HagarTheHorrible]

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I don't think Fokker was deliberately making a slow fighter. At the time the Dr.I was conceived, most enemy planes it enountered were still Pups and Quirks. And the Dr.I could surely "out-Pup" a Pup. The fast SPADS were faster anyway, there was no way you could make a rotary engine fighter being able to outrun them. But then outclimbing them is a great idea, as the speed differential is in any case within the possibilities of catching the opponent in a dive. But in late 1917 even twin seaters could fly high and fast enough to negate any chance of meaningful interception, something a D.VII was much better at.

 

As for the actual planeset for FC I, i think the current set is not a bad choice. They surely must have stack ranked upon popularity, and late war fighters are always preferred there over pretty much anything. And we need these initial sales to do well in order to get the rest. My hope is that for the next iteration, this will be a bit more bomber focused. It makes sense to just transfer everything from RoF to FC, but then, more French Bombers such as Caudrons and Salmsons would be great.

 

 

Won't disagree, but I think the propeller pitch of the DR1 is the big giveaway here.  It climbed at a steep angle thanks, in large part to the propeller even though this design element negated a higher top speed.  If Ricthofen was still instrumental in performance requirements of the DR1 at that stage it might suggest what he thought was important and climb trumped speed for an aircraft that wasn't ever going to be quick.  He didn't want to just out turn an opponent but be able to climb out of harms way while in close contact ready to swoop down on his floundering foe.

[J2_Trupobaw]

For some reason, German pilots considered the Dr.I to be faster than D.V... 

[US103_Baer]

On 7/3/2018 at 4:09 AM, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

 

Tacticly I would rate it more as an interceptor rather than air superiority fighter (that title goes undoubtedly to the SPAD)

 

Fixed it for you ?

 

The initial Spad v Dr1 fights are going to be pretty ugly affairs. 

As someone has already noted, its akin to FW190 v i16.

Good news for Spad drivers though.

 

US103_Baer

 

 

[ZachariasX]

16 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

For some reason, German pilots considered the Dr.I to be faster than D.V... 

Tells you about the D.V's they were getting. Or how high they ran their Oberursel. It is not possible for an aircraft to outpace its propeller pitch.

[Cynic_Al]

17 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

For some reason, German pilots considered the Dr.I to be faster than D.V... 

 

Camel known not to be able to catch DV.

 

Camel known to be able to catch Dr1

 

Dr1 faster than DV?     Altitude qualifier needed perhaps.

[J2_Trupobaw]

They also considered D.V speed on par with 1917 S.E.5  (but not Spad 7s) and superior to other Entente types. Tells you about how little we really know.

[Garven]

47 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Tells you about the D.V's they were getting. Or how high they ran their Oberursel. It is not possible for an aircraft to outpace its propeller pitch.

Wait... The camel is supposed to be slower than the albatrosses but the DR1 slower than the camel.  If Trupo's comment is true then surely they were speaking of climb rate.

[ZachariasX]

52 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

Wait... The camel is supposed to be slower than the albatrosses but the DR1 slower than the camel.  If Trupo's comment is true then surely they were speaking of climb rate. 

On climb, with such a prop you're certainly fast in the Dr.I

 

I think with anectotal references to speed, one should maybe also take into account that in case of a chase, the prey would usually at least start some soert of dive. You're not reflecting theroetical max speed at given max. rpm. The Albatros is certainly faster then the Camel in this. How much slower the Camel is exactly in level configuration, one needs to find out still. The Camel's prop certainly keeps it from being a great climber, and the Albatros is not so bad in tha department.

[J2_Trupobaw]

6 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Camel known not to be able to catch DV.

 

Camel known to be able to catch Dr1

 

Dr1 faster than DV?     Altitude qualifier needed perhaps.

Most likely, not the same engined Camel and not the same Dr.I . The arrival of Bentleys (?) in spring 1918 gave Camels huge boost, from clearly inferior to Dr.I to clearly superior. OTOH, by spring 1918 remaining Dr.Is were well worn out, with airframes patched and re-patched and engines deteriorated by ersatz oil, far cry from F.I prototypes that were first measured against D.V. These used up Dr.Is were handed over by Jagdgeschwederen to "lesser" Jastas when D.VIIs arrived, and these Jastas accepted them gladly because even in their condition they were still an improvement over D.Vas (which, by this time, were mostly overhauled to D.IIIau engines)!

[J2_Oelmann]

I loved the random engine failures feature they had in WOFF. I wish they would bring it to FC. Or maybe even different engines choices. 1 factory fresh, one worn out engine. Or maybe captured Le Rhone engines for the Dr1

[US103_Hunter]

Welcome to the new forums... a lot like the old forums... 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

I know this subsection of the forum is still WIP but keep in mind that this FC section use the same rules as others subsections in this forums. And will be applied in case of need. Please take a moment to read them:

 

Giving you space/time to settle in but do not think in any case this is the old forum. It has been a long time since I go there and actually read posts but since everybody here seems to refer to it a lot I have to say it, again. Do not think this is the same or that is moderated the same way. Nothing wrong with the way the guys run RoF forums but we do moderate differently here, or thats what I heard.

 

Haash

[unreasonable]

Old forum:   

 

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. Wikipedia

 

an·ar·chist

ˈanərkəst/

noun

plural noun: anarchists

a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.

 

New forum: not like that.  

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 7/9/2018 at 8:16 PM, SYN_Haashashin said:

Nothing wrong with the way the guys run RoF forums

 .

I plead the fifth  .

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

[edited]

16. Messages lacking meaning (i.e. containing only one quote) can be removed by the administrator/moderator

Edited July 12, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[No.23_Gaylion]

Just sitting here waiting on the Halberstadt CL II to drop!

[Cynic_Al]

My thought on the initial planeset pair is that it could give rise to a problem, in that I have a strict policy of omitting the Dr1 (among others) from alternate maps. Looks like I'll have to omit alternate maps, although considering the area we're being given, I'm not sure even my creativity could stretch to more than one map.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Use one element loop - it has no even elements ;). 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

AI Spad make it easy 4u

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

My thought on the initial planeset pair is that it could give rise to a problem, in that I have a strict policy of omitting the Dr1 (among others) from alternate maps. Looks like I'll have to omit alternate maps, although considering the area we're being given, I'm not sure even my creativity could stretch to more than one map.

 

That’s easy:

 

Map 1: SPAD vs. Dr. I (WWI map)

 

Map 2: Red SPAD vs Blue SPAD (Kuban summer map)

 

Map 3: Red Dr.I vs Blue Dr.I (Moscow autumn map)

 

Map 4: Po-2 vs. Ju52/3m (Stalingrad winter map)

 

Repeat cycle.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It's just air ehmm ai... map is not important only fun important , I'm only one who shot down 109 in spad )?

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[TP_Sparky]

Give me Gal Gadot in a Po-2 and I'll clear the skies-

 

or run away and you'll never find me.  ?

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

Use one element loop - it has no even elements ;). 

 

Apart from element 0.

[Garven]

Spoiler

 

7 hours ago, Hellbender said:

 

Map 4: Po-2 vs. Ju52/3m (Stalingrad winter map)

Can't help but think of this video.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[TP_Sparky]

30 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Can't help but think of this video.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

My favorite flight sim video ever, bar none.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Dude, the one that popped up after that was awesome.