Jump to content
Chill31

Fokker Dr.I Discussion

Recommended Posts

I've posted this before, but some may not have seen it. A poem wot I rote:

 

Tom Sopwith and the carpenters (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

"The time has come", Tom Sopwith said,
"To talk of many things:
Of ribs and struts and bracing wires,
And planes with triple wings.
To twist and turn, and loop and climb
and run around in rings".

"A rotary is what we need,
behind, a Vickers gun:
two wheels, a prop,
And suchlike 'till it's done.
We'll send it up into the clouds
To perforate the Hun".

Tom Sopwith set his men to work,
upon his new contraption
They hammered, sawed and glued and screwed
till driven to distraction,
then broke for tea, and biscuits (three!),
continued with the lamps on.

All through the night (the Moon was bright)
They worked on Tom's invention
Of canvas, wood, of cloth and dope
And wires all tight with tension
assembled all from wheels to tail 
And then they fixed the wings on.

The pilot sat inside the Tripe
behind the Vickers gun
they spun the prop, and off he shot
to climb up to the sun
to turn and loop, and wheel about
and perforate the Hun.


The German in his Albatross
was clueless what was coming
The triplane pounced, then wheeled right round
and went on with its gunning
The Huns below, all saw the show,
Astonished at such cunning.

So off they went, all giving vent,
to see their best constuctor
With gutteral curse, and language worse,
they barked out urgent order
To build and fly, as their reply
A triple-winged destructor.

"Tis time", Anthony Fokker said
"To talk of many things
Of ribs and struts (no bracing wires!)
And planes with triple wings.
To twist and turn, and loop and climb
and run around in rings..."

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's not how it happened, nor why Dr.I was so needed :).

The German in his Albatross
was clueless what was coming
His wing strut bent and down he went
before Tripe started with gunning
The Huns below, all saw the show,
Astonished at such cunning.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the million dollar question now is ...   Who owns a SPAD?

 

Don't worry I will see myself out...

 

S !

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plank said:

I guess the million dollar question now is ...   Who owns a SPAD?

 

Don't worry I will see myself out...

 

S !

P

Haha, I know a guy...and I have a friend who has flown the Nieuport 28.  I'm off today, so I will give them a ring and see where it goes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31 do you fly a real Dr1?

I' m really envious😊.

Thanks to provide your help to confirm the Dr1 flight model.

Salute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/23/2018 at 9:33 AM, Chill31 said:

In my Dr1,  when I let go of the control stick, the elevator moves to a slightly pitch up "neutral" position and the plane pitches up accordingly.  If you watch my video, you can see the level flight neutral position.  It looks like it is slightly nose down elevator.  When I let go, it moves about the same amount to the pitch up side of the horizontal stabilizer.  As depicted in ROF, that isn't accurate.

 

In the pictures above where the green Dr1s are flying, and you can see the nose down elevator...those guys are hauling the mail as the come in for a low pass.  Well over 110 mph.  130? 140? In the bottom picture, he is probably hitting 120 or so.  Remember those planes have too little nose down pitch built into the horizontal stabilizer.  So what you see in those pictures is the MAXIMUM you should ever see it on a Dr1.  If you watch the following video of Mikael Carlson's  Dr1, you can see his elevator position never really looks like the FC/ROF Dr1.  His Dr1 is the most accurately built Dr.1 in the world right now.

 

 

 

OH My Goodness!!!!!! This by far the best I have ever seen. I have watched others in real life but this gave the feel that I was right there. Thank you so much for sharing Chill 31

Edited by J5_Alfred-Sturm
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2018 at 9:13 PM, Chill31 said:

Some of you may have seen this already, but it is useful for comparison to the FM available here.  I spent about 10 minutes with it before having to work :(  However, it seemed much improved over the ROF FM.  I need to see the left turn a bit more to know if it is still a bit quirky there.

 

The real plane flies like an arcade game.  Yank and bank to your heart's content, and there are really no bad qualities.  The roll rate at slow speed is abysmal in the real plane, but when I did a roll in FC, it seemed to match the rate I achieve in this video.  Same with the loop.  I'll dig into it more this weekend for a full review.

 

I always knew that Dr1 in ROF got too much exaggerated  gyro effect expecially during left turn and bank and real thing was much easier then these.  I wonder how it looks in FC now.

Good that there is someone who fly real one thing and these game.

 

Chill31 You lucky one ;)

 

 

 

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31,

I’m glad you find the FC Fokker to be so realistic!

As stated earlier, flightsims on a home computer can only simulate flight to a certain degree. Motion and feedback is mostly absent. You’ll never get that ‘seat of the pants’ feeling that is so crucial. I bet that’s why you’re not groundlooping the real kite ;)

 

Do you have any details about your Fokker? Who built it? By what plans? Any pictures?

 

I have started on my own. Finished the propeller last year...

 

No, not really. ;)

I made it for static display, from the drawings of Achim Engels. Had I balanced it from the start of the build, it should work...

 

 

9F9D24EB-0D62-4B20-AB4E-7BA18F8D9974.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 4:37 PM, Chill31 said:

There is some question about elevator forces and elevator position on the Dr1, so I will use this opportunity to lay down everything I know about it (shouldn't take long...).

 

The Dr1 horizontal tail has a +4.7 (airplane nose down) degree incidence built into the design.  In flight, it results in a slight deflection of the elevator to push the nose down.  I will attach some pictures of a Dr1 that was built without the 4.7 degree incidence (It should have been built with 4.7, but I think it is about half of that).  I talked to the guy who flew it, and he said he couldn't dive more than about 150 mph or it would start pitching up even with full forward stick input!  In these pictures, the tail position looks like the one in ROF/FC, though I have no way of knowing if it is simply a graphical error in representing the position of the tail in ROF/FC.

 

Even with the +4.7 degree incidence, I have to fly with constant forward stick pressure.  It is impossible to fly the Dr1 with out manipulating the flight controls continuously. If you do try, it will pitch up with an assertive nose track.

 

 After some amount of flying (an hour or so), my hand begins to cramp up.  In one day, I flew the Dr1 for about 5 hours, so I was completely exhausted afterward (see my pictures in the original post).  

 

 

I´m very amazed to read this, .. Do you need fly the Dr-1 with forward stick pressure, at all speeds of flight, fast and slow? .. even at low speed during landing flare? 
what about the Weight & Balance?  Do you need forward stick pressure flying with more weight in the nose?, Hav you try with the real machineguns & ammo., more fuel, a girlfriend in your lap ,etc) ?? ;)

 

On 7/23/2018 at 7:56 PM, Chill31 said:

It is a terrible gun platform.  Shooting at 50m or less is very good advice as the slightest elevator or rudder input will move the plane and shake the guns around.  the FC Dr1 could be a little more unstable in yaw, but as it is, I find it reasonable.  Are you able to snipe in the Dr1?  I think snap views are the most unrealistic element to shooting in a flight sim, especially a WWI flight sim.  

But "to shake the guns around the target" is not good for spreading bullets on it? ...  I ´ve read about a simple aircraft gunnery practice of doing zig zag, with smooth rudder inputs for sweep the target with bullets. It would be difficult in the real Dr-1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

I´m very amazed to read this, .. Do you need fly the Dr-1 with forward stick pressure, at all speeds of flight, fast and slow? .. even at low speed during landing flare? 
what about the Weight & Balance?  Do you need forward stick pressure flying with more weight in the nose?, Hav you try with the real machineguns & ammo., more fuel, a girlfriend in your lap ,etc) ?? ;)

 

But "to shake the guns around the target" is not good for spreading bullets on it? ...  I ´ve read about a simple aircraft gunnery practice of doing zig zag, with smooth rudder inputs for sweep the target with bullets. It would be difficult in the real Dr-1?

 

No, you don't need forward stick pressure at all speeds.  As you slow down, the forward stick pressure decreases until it will fly hands off around 60 mph.  During the landing, you have to pull back in order to land it in the 3-point attitude.  All of the weight that the pilot can control is situated very close to the center of gravity, so there is little to be gained by manipulating the weight.  As it is built right now, my center of gravity is just slightly aft of the original.  Flying a Dr1 with a girlfriend in your lap would be a terrible tease since you cant let of the plane controls!

 

No, spreading your bullets all over with the low rate of fire found in WWI planes is not a very good way to shoot.  In reading the accounts of aces, aerial marksmanship seems to be key to their success.  There is a lot of empty air in WWI aircraft.  I think that is one aspect of ROF/FC that is poorly portrayed at this point...a few wing hits and down she goes.  In reality, most bullets will simply pass through the fabric without hitting anything important.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Chill,

Have you had the chance to mock dogfight in your Dr1?  If so, what’s that like compared to our sims?   

 

(Or or maybe the FAA frowns on such frivolity.  )

 

Ceowulf<><.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the difference to flight performance and handling if you had MG's and ammo onboard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 8:56 PM, Ceowulf said:

Hey Chill,

Have you had the chance to mock dogfight in your Dr1?  If so, what’s that like compared to our sims?   

 

(Or or maybe the FAA frowns on such frivolity.  )

 

Ceowulf<><.  

 

It is perfectly legal to have a mock dogfight here in the U.S.  It requires some pre-briefing in order to have a healthy level of safety.  To date, I have not had a mock dogfight in the Dr1 :(  Hoping rectify that next year though!  I really toss the Dr1 around though, and it is very easy to maneuver it.  Compare it to a Stearman (almost 30 years newer than the Dr1), and it is VERY easy to fly and relatively light on the controls.  It really just wants to fly, so I have yet to do anything with the plane that made it behave poorly.  

 

In comparison to our sims...mine vs ROF, it is...not even close.  ROF does not represent the Dr1 in a way that is believable for me, and it really kills my enjoyment of the airplane in that sim.  mine vs FC...amazing!  I don't know what they did, if anything, other than import it to the IL2 engine, but it is night and day different from ROF, and I find it to be a very convincing model.  Flying the FC Dr1, you should fly with the feeling that you ARE flying a Dr1 (the landing is...not accurate though.  In all of IL2, I find there to be too much bounce when the wheels touch.)

 

 

On 8/10/2018 at 7:03 AM, Trooper117 said:

What would be the difference to flight performance and handling if you had MG's and ammo onboard?

My aircraft has replica MGs on it that are so realistic I have had owners of the real LMG08/15 ask me if mine were real. "They are so good, I couldn't tell, and I have a real one!"

 

The weight of my plane represents the historical aircraft.  The empty weight is a little heavier than an original Dr1.  However, when I load it with half fuel and hop in, it is at the historical weight of the aircraft.  My CG is about 1 inch aft of the original.  

 

To answer your question, I don't think there would be any performance change because I am already pretty much in line with the original Dr1.  The only thing remaining to change is the engine/prop.  

 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31, It is very thoughtful of you to come on the forum and tell us all about your real World experience with your DR1. Thank you for sharing your unique knowhow with the Dev Team and the community. And your machine is very lovely. I really like the paint scheme you went with on your DR1! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your feedback.

 

Are you going to have the opportunity to test FC in VR ?

 

It would also be very interesting to have your opinion, the sensations in VR being radically different and surment even closer to reality.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pollux said:

Thanks for your feedback.

 

Are you going to have the opportunity to test FC in VR ?

 

It would also be very interesting to have your opinion, the sensations in VR being radically different and surment even closer to reality.
 

I would love to!  However, all of my extra money is going toward adapting the Dr1 to use the rotary engine.  One day, I will get VR because it does sound awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 7:37 AM, Chill31 said:

I would love to!  However, all of my extra money is going toward adapting the Dr1 to use the rotary engine.  One day, I will get VR because it does sound awesome!

 

First of all Chill, let me just say how much I appreciate all the priceless information you've been giving our community about the flying of a real DR1. I salute you!

 

Words can't explain how awesome I'm finding this simulation in VR. And the DR1 is especially fun. I love the maneuverability of the aircraft, and also the visibility while in flight (compare it to the SPAD!). Presumably my visibility from the cockpit in VR is comparable to what you enjoy in the real aircraft. Which leads me to my question: the visibility while in flight is superlative. But landing.....that is a different story! During the rollout I lose all forward visibility ahead behind the engine and the middle wings. Because of the propensity of the aircraft to ground loop, I really need to be able to maintain "directional awareness" so that I can control the aircraft in a straight line as I decelerate. But the lack of visibility causes me to lose that awareness. I've tried a number of approaches, including leaning my head out the side of the cockpit to look ahead along the side of the fuselage. Not the best way to do it for me...  :wacko:

 

How do you maintain this awareness? Or is it not quite so important because of the real aircraft's more benign ground handling? Your insights will be most welcomed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jack59 said:

How do you maintain this awareness? Or is it not quite so important because of the real aircraft's more benign ground handling? Your insights will be most welcomed....

 

The Dr.I has the worst forward visibility of any taildragger I've ever flown (Instructing in the T-6 from the back seat is a very close second).  The way I land all taildraggers is to focus straight off the nose and use my peripheral vision to watch everything else, the ground, the sky background, etc. The result is that I end up watching the background movement against the airframe and make corrections based on that relative movement.  In the Dr.I the worst thing in the world is to have a clear blue sky and no trees along the runway, since you really cant see the ground at all. 

 

The most important thing is to be quick to make corrections.  If you wait, you risk letting the plane build up enough momentum that you cant stop it (ground loop coming).  Also, a burst of power can add airflow to the rudder to help if it isn't obeying.

 

All that said, I find the sim DrI to be much more slippery on the ground as well as too bouncy.  When the mains touch during a wheel landing in the DrI, it bobbles a little, but it doesn't go bouncing down the runway.  I rarely land the FC/ROF Dr.I without a ground loop...yet, I have never ground looped the real plane. 

 

Hope it helps!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

All that said, I find the sim DrI to be much more slippery on the ground as well as too bouncy.  When the mains touch during a wheel landing in the DrI, it bobbles a little, but it doesn't go bouncing down the runway.  I rarely land the FC/ROF Dr.I without a ground loop...yet, I have never ground looped the real plane. 

 

I agree. I have handed many kills to people over the years because the Dr.1 bounced all over and prong its prop on the ground (they should remove this stats feature), especially if I'm wounded or missing an aileron and such. It does not happen that often with the N11 or N17, which is much easier to land.

 

You have to fly days in a row to start getting the hang of it, and even then you will prong the prop or flip or groundloop eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Hope it helps!

 

Thanks Chill! Yes, that was helpful. Among other things, it tells me that I'm not missing some secret technique....

 

I've been flying mostly with predominately clear skies. I guess I'll have to put a few more clouds in the sky to give me reference points! Peripheral vision works great with monoplanes and biplanes, but the middle wing takes out the (somewhat reduced relative to real life) peripheral vision that the VR headset provides, at least for features on or near ground level.

 

I certainly understand what you're saying about being quick to make corrections...more than once I've failed to do that, or more often over-corrected. I do find it interesting that the DR1 has skids on the underneath of the lower wings; maybe the WW1 pilots ground looped more than you are in the habit of doing?

 

When you get one of those Le Rhones fitted to your aircraft, do you expect to be blipping your way into landings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack59 said:

I certainly understand what you're saying about being quick to make corrections...more than once I've failed to do that, or more often over-corrected. I do find it interesting that the DR1 has skids on the underneath of the lower wings; maybe the WW1 pilots ground looped more than you are in the habit of doing?

 

When you get one of those Le Rhones fitted to your aircraft, do you expect to be blipping your way into landings?

 

They did ground loop a lot in the Dr.I, and you are correct as to the reason they are there!  The previous owner of my Dr.I ground looped and broke three wing ribs when the wingtip skid broke...those ribs are VERY fragile.  The Dr.I was built with the utmost attention to keeping it light.

 

When it comes to landing with the rotary...gees, I don't know yet!  I will watch all of the youtube videos of rotary Dr.Is landing about a million times and then try to emulate their technique and hope for the best...oh, and I will master landing the FC Dr.I! If I can land that, surely the real one must be easier!

Land like this in FC and tell me what happens to your Dr.I!!

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

 

Land like this in FC and tell me what happens to your Dr.I!!

 

 

Wouldn't be pretty...no one will be clapping and cheering, that's for sure! :o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground loops have been an issue with this game engine since day one.  It is THE ONE long standing discrepancy from reality that the devs seem to have dug their heels in on, even in the face of comments from real pilots that it is far over done in the sim.

 

I will now put on my Nomex suit and await the flames from the "harder is more real" members of this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 8:55 PM, Chill31 said:

In comparison to our sims...mine vs ROF, it is...not even close.  ROF does not represent the Dr1 in a way that is believable for me, and it really kills my enjoyment of the airplane in that sim.  mine vs FC...amazing!  I don't know what they did, if anything, other than import it to the IL2 engine, but it is night and day different from ROF, and I find it to be a very convincing model.  Flying the FC Dr1, you should fly with the feeling that you ARE flying a Dr1 (the landing is...not accurate though.  In all of IL2, I find there to be too much bounce when the wheels touch.)

 

Chill maby You miss my post about gyroscopic moment in ROF vs real plane. Maby they decrased these in FC so thats now Fokker flying is more close to real. I always doubt in gyro effect was such big like in ROF Dr1 comparing to real kite but nobody was listeaning expecially developers (777 on these time).  Good that now we have real Dr1 pilot opinion with rotary engine ;)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

Chill maby You miss my post about gyroscopic moment in ROF vs real plane. Maby they decrased these in FC so thats now Fokker flying is more close to real. I always doubt in gyro effect was such big like in ROF Dr1 comparing to real kite but nobody was listeaning expecially developers (777 on these time).  Good that now we have real Dr1 pilot opinion with rotary engine ;)

To be fair, I have not flown a rotary Dr.I yet.  My goal is to have my Dr.I flying with an 80 Rhone by Feb of 2019, if not earlier.  After that, I want to restore the 120 Rhone to flying condition, and fly it with that engine (it is an expensive thing to rebuild this engine!  so I will have to go on the street to beg for money for a little bit to get it going).  It should provide a great comparison for the difference in engines though, not to mention give a more accurate performance of the Dr.I.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chill31 said:

My goal is to have my Dr.I flying with an 80 Rhone by Feb of 2019, if not earlier.  After that, I want to restore the 120 Rhone to flying condition, and fly it with that engine (...) It should provide a great comparison for the difference in engines though, not to mention give a more accurate performance of the Dr.I.

 

That would be awesome - the possibility for you to compare the performance of both engines. We have several planes in ROF with similar engines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

So these video with flying Dr1 black and White werent You? It was not rotary one?

It's me, but it has Lycoming in it at the moment instead of Rhone.  It should be a good opportunity to see just how significant (if at all) the difference is.

Edited by Chill31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea i watched Michael Carslon Dr1 videos from flying woth rotary engine and didnt saw any problems with proceeding left turn like in ROF. I dunno about FC gyro modelling cause i still dont buy it to try

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Chill   For many years some have claimed ROF has little or no adverse yaw modeled, have you noticed any adverse yaw when you start a bank? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

Yea i watched Michael Carslon Dr1 videos from flying woth rotary engine and didnt saw any problems with proceeding left turn like in ROF. I dunno about FC gyro modelling cause i still dont buy it to try

 

It is there all right, but nothing like RoF where the plane would turn itself inside out at the slightest opportunity.  You have to hold the stick forwards more to stop the plane rearing out of the LH turn, while in a RH turn the stick feels relatively neutral.  I found this more effective than trying to compensate with rudder, which feels much the same in both turns.

 

People have been saying how the forwards stick pressure is excessive, but having just made a long test flight I have a few observations.  At low altitude and high revs you certainly have to hold the stick well forwards, but there are altitudes and revolution settings where you can fly hands and feet off, except for two fingers to stop any incipient roll.

 

Throttle back to 900 at about 1km and let the natural phugoid die down: the plane will settle if you let it and climb slowly hands off up to about 2.2km at which point the rate of climb becomes imperceptible.  Increase revs to 1000 and you can continue to climb to 3.8km, increase to 1100 up to 5.7km. I got about 1140 maximum and was just about level at 6.2km although I might have continued to climb very slowly.  

 

While reducing rpm in the descent I found the altitudes at which I was not losing height were somewhat higher: I had used a fair bit of fuel by then.   All this with feet off the rudder and only controlling for roll. This is all done taking off with full load, Kuban Spring map.  

 

So it is possible to fly without much forwards pressure at the altitudes at which WW1 planes usually patrolled, provided you throttle back a little. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×