Jump to content
Chill31

Fokker Dr.I Discussion

Recommended Posts

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).  

Fokker_Elevator1.jpg

Fokker Elevator2.jpg

Edited by Chill31
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are sugesting (innocently I am sure, as a justification for 'pseudo trim' ) that it would be easy to 'rig' on the ground to remove the  forward stick pressure need, would you care to comment on why this would be impractical or (even) if possible at all, in easy terms for those less educated in theory

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 5:43 AM, Dakpilot said:

Some people are sugesting (innocently I am sure, as a justification for 'pseudo trim' ) that it would be easy to 'rig' on the ground to remove the  forward stick pressure need, would you care to comment on why this would be impractical or (even) if possible at all, in easy terms for those less educated in theory

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

This is true to a limited degree.  You can shim the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer to change the angle of incidence. However, from the manufactured position, you can only change it to give more nose down "trim".  I don't know if it was done in WWI though, and it would be impossible to get it removed completely since the bolt holes (that attach the horizontal stabilizer) would not line up at that point.

 

EDITED: I fly ROF/FC with a MS FFB2 and a TM Warthog with stick extension.  With MS FFB2, the FC Dr.I is perfect.  With the Warthog and stick extension, it seems about right as well.  If the elevator position depicted graphically is accurate to what is being simulated, then I think there is something off, and they should consider to rebalance the plane.

Edited by Chill31
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

  If the elevator position depicted graphically is accurate to what is being simulated, then I think there is something off, and they should tone it down.

 

Many of us have been saying that for a long time. I say that the depicted deflection is best interpreted as a representation of force applied, not the deflection that would result from such force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a screen shot of the DR1 pitch off-set I use, it is almost half of the down travel(forward  stick) way too much. It still give full travel up and down .

rof 2018-07-22 08-17-47-24.jpg

Edited by HiIIBiIIy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Many of us have been saying that for a long time. I say that the depicted deflection is best interpreted as a representation of force applied, not the deflection that would result from such force.

 

The developers should know if that is the case easily enough: the physical aeroplane does not "care" about the force applied by the pilot as long as the elevator position is maintained, only the actual position of the elevator, so the FM must be using the actual deflection. 

 

In this case I would rather go with Chill's comments earlier: the game Dr.1 looks as though it's tailplane is not set at +4.7 but much less than that, similar to the plane in the photos he posted. Can the FC Dr.1 be dived at 150 mph (240 kph)?  I have difficulty diving it at all, at least on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Some people are sugesting (innocently I am sure, as a justification for 'pseudo trim' ) that it would be easy to 'rig' on the ground to remove the  forward stick pressure need, would you care to comment on why this would be impractical or (even) if possible at all, in easy terms for those less educated in theory

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

I'm sure you are referring to me :cool:

 

I'd just like to clarify,. I'm not referring to some "pseudo trim" or trimming device.  I'd be very surprised if it was impossible to shim aircraft, to a limited extent, to be flown   to the pilots liking ( importantly, given a certain speed and CoG (fuel ?)) I'm sure the range of possibility was limited, as Chill says, but it was possible.  I remembered an article about test flying the Pup (modern day) in which the pilot says that he had to hold the control colum almost fully forward during flight. Someone here remembered the same article but said that the Pup operators later shimmed out the tailplane so that it flew more normally.  Which is basically what I'm suggesting to allow for different joystick types.

 

I'm very much in the Leon Bennett camp when it comes to some WW1 aircraft. Diving is problematic, because, and this might be as much my own delusion, low weight, low power and high lift is fine for flying normally but becomes increasingly challenging outside that simple regime.  Increased airspeed creates more and more lift to the point that it quickly overcomes the pilots ability to hold the nose down.  Yes aircraft can dive but within limits and not at high speed.  I'd be interested to know if, once Chill has installed his rotary, if he thinks it is a requirement to blip the engine off during a sustained dive with the prop acting a bit like an airbrake to help control the decent speed and thus excessive pitching up.

 

Chill31 is probably :biggrin: heavier than your average WW1 pilot which might affect him having to push the control colum forward more than was maybe normal for a lighter, hungry, German WW1 pilot.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 8:57 AM, unreasonable said:

Will be interested to get your thoughts on the feel of the FC Dr.1: I found your comments in the RoF forums most illuminating.

 

 

Understatement of the year! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more thoughts on the FC Dr.1 elevator.

 

1)I take back what I said about not being able to dive it at 200kph plus: it is actually quite easy with firm stick pressure, the plane never pitches up more than you can counter. Throttle back to reduce over-rev risk. 

 

2) If you fly with hands off - or just two fingers to main control - you can see that the elevator droops quite a bit. When you push forwards to fly level the angle roughly doubles. So whatever that first section of angle is it is not measuring stick force, because there was none. Pull or push on the stick and release and the angle reverts to the "hands off" droop.  ;) 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Chill31 is probably :biggrin: heavier than your average WW1 pilot which might affect him having to push the control colum forward more than was maybe normal for a lighter, hungry, German WW1 pilot.

 

 

Haha, probably one day. For now, 5'8" and 140lbs. I fit in a Dr1 like it was made especially for me.  I suppose that is one reason I am fond of flying it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...WOW!!!  I just finished wringing out the FC Dr1, and it is excellent!  Not perfect, but excellent. So here goes my review of the Fokker Dr.1 FM in Flying Circus...

 

My setup:

Warthog HOTAS w/ 6 inch stick extension

Simped rudder pedals

TrackIR 5

 

This is the first time in a commercial flight sim I actually felt like I could be flying a Fokker Dr1.  The handling in the air is VERY convincing, and as a Dr1 pilot, I applaud the developer's representation of the aircraft's handling qualities.

 

ROLL

I checked the roll rate against my own Dr1, and it is about 6 seconds for a full 360 degree roll.  Excellent match!  Not only that, I find that I am using the SAME control inputs to execute the roll as I have to use in the real plane.  One of the previously under emphasized aspects of the Dr1 is the adverse yaw generated from large aileron throws (well, any aileron throw).  The nose swings wildly left and right if rudder is not used to coordinate your turn.  The FC Dr1 represents that feature very well.  OVERALL: Roll performance and handling is excellent.

 

****Edit based on questions: The control forces in roll  are very light - WHEN COMPARED TO CONTEMPORARY AIRCRAFT.  Talking to people who have flown Camels and Pups and SPADS...the Dr. 1 has light control forces compared to those aircraft.  Roll is the heaviest of the 3 control axes on the Dr.1.  Elevator and rudder are both extremely light, to the point that I would say moving them takes no effort on the pilot's part. 

 

PITCH

I checked the pitch rate through a loop and a 360 degree maximum performance turn.  The loop in my Dr1 takes about 8 seconds: excellent match!  A 360 maximum turn (turn at max rate regardless of altitude loss) takes about 8 seconds as well.  Again, excellent match!  In pitch, I am able to apply full back stick, especially on the back side of the loop, and through slightly descending turns.  In FC Dr1, I was able to do both of those, and it felt very familiar to the real plane.  In level flight, I have to apply a constant forward stick pressure.  I don't believe it is as much as the Dr1 in FC requires, however, the presence is noticeable and, without looking at the tail, believable when using my Warthog w/ extension.  I think that is the weakest part of the pitch model and could probably be satisfied by doubling whatever figure they are using for horizontal tail incidence.

 

YAW

The rudder in my Dr1 is very sensitive.  The plane responds to the slightest touch on the rudder.  One significant feature about the rudder is the aerodynamic balance which eliminates all rudder feedback through the rudder bar.  You can push the rudder to full deflection, and the force required is the same throughout the deflection.  This is one feature that is probably impossible to replicate in a sim.  However, the responsiveness to rudder input in the FC Dr1 bears a very good resemblance to the Dr1.  The FC  Dr1 is differs from the real Dr1 in that it is slightly too stable in yaw when flying straight and level, but not enough that I would complain to have it changed.  Another aspect of the yaw on the FC Dr1 that departs wildly from the real plane is its reaction at high slip angles where it rolls aggressively.  I would be shocked, based on my experience modeling the Dr1 in FSX, if they can eliminate that feature.  Overall:  I have no way to measure yaw currently, so I would say the real plane is represented VERY WELL despite not being perfectly accurate.

 

POWER-OFF STALL

The power off stall in my Dr1 is very benign.  It doesn't have a definite break, but instead just mushes slightly nose low as the descent rate picks up.  If I aggravate the stall by holding full aft-stick, the wings will rock back and forth but can be countered with rudder and aileron input.  The FC Dr1 represents this very well.  However, the aggravated stall is more aggressive and uncontrollable than my plane.  

 

ACCELERATED STALL

The only way I have been able to get an accelerated stall in my Dr1 is to do a level, full aft stick turn.  In this case, it will gently drop a wing, usually the inside wing due to the amount of rudder I am using to aid the turn.  If you release the back stick pressure just a little bit, it will immediately regain full control and continue to turn.  I thought this was represented PERFECTLY in the FC Dr1.  

 

SPIN

I only spun my Dr1 one time for a half rotation before executing anti-spin control inputs.  Spin entry was mild ie. it didn't snap into a spin.  I released back stick pressure and applied opposite rudder.  My impression was that the rudder did not do as much as the elevator to stop the spin.  Releasing back stick pressure with a little forward of neutral jab broke the stall immediately, and I was flying again.  My impression of the FC Dr1 is that it spins a little too easily, but exiting the spin is very much in line with my brief spin experience in my Dr1.

 

OVERALL

This is a fun and very convincing model of the Fokker Dr1, and in most cases, very accurate to the Dr1 I have flown.  I hope you all enjoy it, because this is probably as close as you can get without taking one out for a spin. 😄🍺

 

Edited by Chill31
Included yaw review & question responses
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 11
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for posting that, it will make me enjoy FC even more knowing the Dr.1 is life like beyond just my bookish imagination. 

 

Btw, I was just on your wing out there, Chill when you were testing a few minutes ago.  (We got jumped just after take off...)

 

Ceowulf<><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback Chill31. It's nice to see just how close to the real thing the FC Dr 1 is.  

 

I've just tested a quick fix to reduce the centring force on my joystick (a couple of rubber bands partially compressing the spring), and it seems much more controllable now. And I can always tell myself the sore shoulder is authentic! 

 

I should probably try the RoF Dr 1 again, just to see whether the FM really is that different. From what I remember I never really got the hang of it, so either it is different, or I've got better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been trying to land the Dr1 and it seems to me that has changed a little too.  I needed to blip to get it down!  Anyone else or am I seeing things...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering about the glide angle of both the Fokker and the SPAD.  These are very draggy airframes.  One would think that they would come out of the sky a whole lot more abruptly when you cut power.   I know that the Stearman  I had the chance to fly once sure did.

Share this post


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

Thanks a lot for posting that, it will make me enjoy FC even more knowing the Dr.1 is life like beyond just my bookish imagination. 

 

Btw, I was just on your wing out there, Chill when you were testing a few minutes ago.  (We got jumped just after take off...)

 

Ceowulf<><

Oh nice! Yes, I was in full sight seeing mode...in a dogfight server...haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for review: it does add hugely to enjoyment of a virtual plane to know that someone with real experience rates the simulation so highly.

 

On the elevator angle: I noticed that about half of the elevator down angle needed to maintain full throttle level flight is still there if you release the stick and just let the plane settle into a climb. Is that true on the the real thing?  

Share this post


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

Thanks for review: it does add hugely to enjoyment of a virtual plane to know that someone with real experience rates the simulation so highly.

 

On the elevator angle: I noticed that about half of the elevator down angle needed to maintain full throttle level flight is still there if you release the stick and just let the plane settle into a climb. Is that true on the the real thing?  

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.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31 I'm really struggling to prevent a ground loop in the DR1 on landing. 

Can you give me some tips ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

@Chill31 I'm really struggling to prevent a ground loop in the DR1 on landing. 

Can you give me some tips ?

 

Have a look at this... 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

@Chill31 I'm really struggling to prevent a ground loop in the DR1 on landing. 

Can you give me some tips ?

Haha, nope.  Ground handling is only adequate in my opinion.  It serves its purpose in the sim, but is not truly representative of the aircraft.  I have yet to land without a ground loop in the sim...in the real plane, i have yet to ground loop...

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Haha, nope.  Ground handling is only adequate in my opinion.  It serves its purpose in the sim, but is not truly representative of the aircraft.  I have yet to land without a ground loop in the sim...in the real plane, i have yet to ground loop...

 

so would you say the ground handling is not too far removed from a typical tail dragger ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

so would you say the ground handling is not too far removed from a typical tail dragger ?

 

Not too.  But it is more challenging in the ROF/FC Dr1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No flight sim game in existence can give you 100 percent realism... despite what [edited] of any of them will tell you.

You will get an approximation and the rest is up to your imagination to achieve that 'immersion' feeling  :joy:  :yahoo:

 

Having said that, there will always be a way to 'game the game' to get the aeroplane to behave safely in your hands, and as Chill31 has real life experience of the Dr1, we are already hearing that there are differences in game to the reality.

That still doesn't stop me from enjoying any of my flight sims of course! 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31  - I noticed your review didn't discuss yaw and side-slip separately. This is interesting given the fact that the Dr.I is known for its powerful rudder, and the all flying rudder combined with the short tail is unusual compared to modern aircraft.

 

That said, I tend to get into crashes playing with rudder and side-slip in the sim. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31 Thanks for all the Dr1 handling input: It's immensely interesting to get all the feedback on how the sim behaves in relation to the real thing from someone who flies the real thing and can compare. I've always been really impressed with what a modern state of the art sim engine like IL-2 can do in real time on a PC and it's impressive how close it seems to be to IRL in many aspects. However, that being said, it's also very interesting to understand a bit about where there are differences and it's good to hear that the ground looping tendency is not so pronounced IRL.

 

Another thing I would be interest to know about is control forces: You wrote earlier on that holding the down elevator on the Dr1 can be tiresome if you fly for a long time. What about in roll? How much difference is it to deflect ailerons at low- and high speed? At what speed (if any!) do you feel hampered in roll? Some German WW1 designs had the characteristic horn balances (e.g. DR1 and D7) which I guess go some way to alleviate increasing stick forces with higher speeds but is there a tendency for overbalance on any axis? Also, how is the Dr1's IRL control feel in terms of balance between axis? Are the controls (pitch, roll and yaw) nicely balanced in relation to each other or is there a tendency for any axis to become more heavy with increasing speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

@Chill31  - I noticed your review didn't discuss yaw and side-slip separately. This is interesting given the fact that the Dr.I is known for its powerful rudder, and the all flying rudder combined with the short tail is unusual compared to modern aircraft.

 

That said, I tend to get into crashes playing with rudder and side-slip in the sim. :)

 

9 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

@Chill31 Thanks for all the Dr1 handling input: It's immensely interesting to get all the feedback on how the sim behaves in relation to the real thing from someone who flies the real thing and can compare. I've always been really impressed with what a modern state of the art sim engine like IL-2 can do in real time on a PC and it's impressive how close it seems to be to IRL in many aspects. However, that being said, it's also very interesting to understand a bit about where there are differences and it's good to hear that the ground looping tendency is not so pronounced IRL.

 

Another thing I would be interest to know about is control forces: You wrote earlier on that holding the down elevator on the Dr1 can be tiresome if you fly for a long time. What about in roll? How much difference is it to deflect ailerons at low- and high speed? At what speed (if any!) do you feel hampered in roll? Some German WW1 designs had the characteristic horn balances (e.g. DR1 and D7) which I guess go some way to alleviate increasing stick forces with higher speeds but is there a tendency for overbalance on any axis? Also, how is the Dr1's IRL control feel in terms of balance between axis? Are the controls (pitch, roll and yaw) nicely balanced in relation to each other or is there a tendency for any axis to become more heavy with increasing speed?

I edited the original post to try to answer these questions.  If I didn't get them, let me know.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about the roll: If it's like you say the heaviest of the axis and there is no tendency to overbalance at any speeds one has to wonder why the designers at Fokker did not increase the horn balance area? Another question BTW: are there any weights in any of the horn balances for static balancing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Interesting about the roll: If it's like you say the heaviest of the axis and there is no tendency to overbalance at any speeds one has to wonder why the designers at Fokker did not increase the horn balance area? Another question BTW: are there any weights in any of the horn balances for static balancing?

There are no weights in the balance area.  Interestingly, on the early Dr1s, the balances were larger, and it seems they reduced the size in order to help in reducing wing failures...

Edited by Chill31

Share this post


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

There are no weights in the balance area.  Interestingly, on the early Dr1s, the balances were larger, and it seems they reduced the size in order to help in reducing wing failures...

 

Now that's interesting info and now that you mention it one can understand how it could happen if you have low control forces: If at high speeds you are able to deflect the aileron far and maybe even fully, you get a large force added with a long moment arm from the torsional center of the wing spar box which may overload it in torsion or twist the wing to unwanted angles of attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

There are no weights in the balance area.  Interestingly, on the early Dr1s, the balances were larger, and it seems they reduced the size in order to help in reducing wing failures...

 

.... or, runaway boost, beyond the ability of the pilot to recover although they didn't know about it until after the war, evidently.  Normal flight was evidently acceptable but steep turns with excessive yaw caused problems that were pretty much beyond the ability of most pilots, even good pilots, to overcome.  There must have been a suspicion that the horns were the issue but not the reason why.

 

Chill, I appreciate this is a bit outside your experience, so it would only be a guesstimate but how well would the DR1 act as a gun platform.  I watched the Carson video above, which might have been misleading for several reasons, the plane fairly moves about with lots of corrections and control input.  Not very helpful for considered shots at a distance, better for the knife fight, for which it was designed.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31 Perhaps you could add  few notes on the engine management to complete your review?  It has been mentioned elsewhere that the FC Dr.1 seems to idle at a higher rpm.

 

I have found that I do not need to blip at all to land if I use fine adjustment [ie the "mixture" lever] with idle throttle  to get rpms to max at about 7,000 while being careful not to let them drop below 6,000 where the prop stops faster than I can get the fuel going again, although I might get better with practice. [edit for clarity: that is the zero throttle but optimized fine control rpm seems to be 7,000 and you can comfortably reduce it to 6,000 using fine control but much below that it gets a bit iffy].

 

The one time I have managed not to ground loop [less than 90% :) ] is when I made sure to set a decent wind in QMB. 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Chill, I appreciate this is a bit outside your experience, so it would only be a guesstimate but how well would the DR1 act as a gun platform.  I watched the Carson video above, which might have been misleading for several reasons, the plane fairly moves about with lots of corrections and control input.  Not very helpful for considered shots at a distance, better for the knife fight, for which it was designed.

 

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.  

 

Think about this, your head is out in the 100 mph wind, the air bounces the plane which bounces you which messes up your aim.  It is hard to sit still and aim in the airplane.  Richthofen still did it to the best of his ability though...I have done some aerial aiming on the flight in the video below, and when the wings are as wide as my front sight, I am just happy to keep the fuselage in the outer circle.  Aim at the pilot?  hahaha

 

 

39 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

@Chill31 Perhaps you could add  few notes on the engine management to complete your review?  It has been mentioned elsewhere that the FC Dr.1 seems to idle at a higher rpm.

 

I have found that I do not need to blip at all to land if I use fine adjustment [ie the "mixture" lever] with idle throttle  to get rpms to max at about 7,000 while being careful not to let them drop below 6,000 where the prop stops faster than I can get the fuel going again, although I might get better with practice.

 

The one time I have managed not to ground loop is when I made sure to set a decent wind in QMB. 

 

I have only run a Le Rhone one time at this point...my experience was that low rpms required the most fiddling with the mixture.  At higher power, it was much more obvious when you had it dialed in correctly.  My fear in idling it down really low for landing would be that it might quit at a most inopportune moment during your pattern/landing and a go around could become a scary situation if you didn't move the levers correctly and quickly.  As it is modeled in ROF, I think it is a little easier than the real thing, but...the real thing might add another layer of complexity that would cause new people to become disinterested...hard to say what the right answer is.  Personally, i would love to have it modeled as the real thing...that is a tough decision for devs though.

 

 

4 minutes of your life you'll never get back...but some decent air to air shots.  The last 40 seconds shows you just how much the plane bobs around and how much control is required.

 

Edited by Chill31
added video
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a no wind condition, I can land without ground looping by seeting the throttle to 10%, full mixture and then blip the engine aiming at a speed of appr. 90 km/h over the treshold.

Once down on the ground, during the ground roll, I blip the engine in order to keep direction and to prevent ground looping.

 

Not sure how realistic this is, but at least works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31 We have to spend our minutes somehow :)  

 

You are right to be concerned about the engine stopping even in the FC Dr.1: it gets irregular under about 6,000 - I had one little accident on the approach while over a forest but fortunately  was able to dead-stick it down on a little forest road. TBH I found landing with the engine off was much easier, since I used to do that as a matter of routine in RoF, although of course I still got a ground-loop.  But the general "how to land" topic probably deserves it's own thread. On your shooting point I also agree that a real culprit is gun-sight snap-views, but try taking them from players' cold, dead hands...... I do not use them but try to keep my iron sights lined up with TiR as a self imposed handicap vs the AI: it is horribly difficult in the Dr.1, quite a bit easier in the SPAD. 

 

I think this has been about the best single aircraft thread I can recall thanks to your knowledge.  Thanks again.  If the developers can change the tail-plane incidence a couple of degrees without some unanticipated problems elsewhere in the FM that would be great.   :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

@Chill31 We have to spend our minutes somehow :)  

 

You are right to be concerned about the engine stopping even in the FC Dr.1: it gets irregular under about 6,000 - I had one little accident on the approach while over a forest but fortunately  was able to dead-stick it down on a little forest road. TBH I found landing with the engine off was much easier, since I used to do that as a matter of routine in RoF, although of course I still got a ground-loop.  But the general "how to land" topic probably deserves it's own thread. On your shooting point I also agree that a real culprit is gun-sight snap-views, but try taking them from players' cold, dead hands...... I do not use them but try to keep my iron sights lined up with TiR as a self imposed handicap vs the AI: it is horribly difficult in the Dr.1, quite a bit easier in the SPAD. 

 

I think this has been about the best single aircraft thread I can recall thanks to your knowledge.  Thanks again.  If the developers can change the tail-plane incidence a couple of degrees without some unanticipated problems elsewhere in the FM that would be great.   :salute:

 

 

Once in in the dirt do you pull hard back on the stick  ?  It shouldn't make any difference to the DR1 (blanked tail surfaces) but memory of RoF suggests that their was a considerable difference, for all/most of the aircraft.  This was most obvious when trying to manouver while taxiing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried with 5 m/s wind setting and it seems easier to avoid that little ground loop at the very end (if you land into the wind of course!). With no wind I find that if you anticipate it you can gun the engine very briefly together with opposite rudder and avoid it. Don't know how realistic that is compared to IRL though since the engine is pretty responsive in FC..... OTOH it seems to work even if you let it ground loop and drag the wing a bit on the wing tip skid at the very end as long as your speed is low.

Share this post


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

 

I have only run a Le Rhone one time at this point...my experience was that low rpms required the most fiddling with the mixture.  At higher power, it was much more obvious when you had it dialed in correctly.  My fear in idling it down really low for landing would be that it might quit at a most inopportune moment during your pattern/landing and a go around could become a scary situation if you didn't move the levers correctly and quickly.  As it is modeled in ROF, I think it is a little easier than the real thing, but...the real thing might add another layer of complexity that would cause new people to become disinterested...hard to say what the right answer is.  Personally, i would love to have it modeled as the real thing...that is a tough decision for devs though.

 

 

 

Very interesting observation Chill. I'm very interested in simulations which would mimic true engine management.

 

I don't know if FC has this, but here is what I've read on other forum regarding the Le Rhone:

 

The Le Rhone design is one of the few rotaries that have any degree of throttle ability. There are 2 levers in the cockpit to control the engine. One controls a tapered needle valve that regulates how much fuel the engine receives. The other operates a slide valve located in an air box, mounted on the rear of the fixed crankshaft. The slide valve opens and closes, which determines how much air the engine is allowed to take in. When the air and the fuel enter the hollow, fixed crankshaft and are sucked into the engine crankcase. Maximum engine speed is 1200 rpm. With the 2 levers, he can throttle the engine down to a speed around 800 rpm. Below that point, the engine just quits. Since 800 rpm is too fast for taxiing and landing, the blip switch on the control stick is utilized to kill the engine and keep the aircraft slowed down. With the 2 levers to control the fuel and the air, the pilot is the carburetor.

 

So, basically, you're limited from around 800 to 1200 rpms is what I'm understanding from the post above. Was that your experience as well?

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

×
×
  • Create New...