Jump to content

Fokker Dr.I Discussion


Recommended Posts

@unreasonable Sure, in-game 9 s stationary turns are quite possible to do in a Dr1. Haven't clocked the Camel yet but I'm sure it would do that as well. In fact if both models have correct relative turn performance then it should do even better right?

 

Also: Are you quite sure the 1.20 to 1.35 s sequence is a stationary turn rate turn? Can't see either the speed or altitude and it looks like the g is not constant?

 

@Chill31: In the video sequence you posted, did you do a stationary turn rate 360 degree turn? If so where in the video sequence was that? What was the altitude and IAS speed maintained during the turn?

Edited by Holtzauge
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

@unreasonable Sure, in-game 9 s stationary turns are quite possible to do in a Dr1. Haven't clocked the Camel yet but I'm sure it would do that as well. In fact if both models have correct relative turn performance then it should do even better right?

 

Also: Are you quite sure the 1.20 to 1.35 s sequence is a stationary turn rate turn? Can't see either the speed or altitude and it looks like the g is not constant?maintained during the turn?

 

Of course I am not sure - as you say we cannot see his speed or altitude.  But I think the two turns starting at 1.20 are the ones to which Chill was referring.

 

I imagine getting the G, altitude and speed all exactly constant throughout the turn is as difficult in Chills Dr.1 as it is in the game.  I can just about do it in the  FC Fokker D.VII, but in the Dr.1  the sensitivity of the controls and general instability makes constant adjustments a must. We may be asking to much if we are expecting test pilot precision.

 

It is a pity that the FC planes do not come with the "Maximum performance turn" measured by Russian Bots shown in the Tech Specs page for all of the WW2 planes.  At least then you would have something consistent in-game measures to work with for your simulation comparisons.

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

 

Where in the video did you do a 360 degree stationary turn rate turn that took 10 s? What was the IAS you held doing that? I must have missed that. Could you specify where in the video those 10 s are?

1:20.  Here it is wings level to wings level in about 12 seconds, maybe a shade over.  

1:35 It is wings level to passing through the reference point (the sun) in a bank in 10 seconds.

1:50 My turn stagnates because I stalled and had to relax back pressure. Took 14 seconds

2:03 This was my best and most stable turn. 10 seconds with no roll in/out.  Roll in/out ads about 1.5 seconds per roll.

--All of these turns were done at approximately 55 mph, with the first ones starting at a higher speed and bleeding down to 55, and 3,000 ft MSL.  It was about 80*F outside though, not 59*

 

I wrote 18.5 s as in 18 and a half not 5 s as such. The 20 s came as I said from someone with the handle "baldeagle" in The Aerodrome forum who it seems has flown a Triplane. Any idea who that is? I would have thought the Triplane flying community was rather small? ;)

I do know who it is, and I think his info is already out there so I don't mind saying...it is Andrew King, former Old Rhinebeck Pilot.  He has never flown a Dr.I as accurate as mine.  ORAs Dr.Is are all...fat girls. They aren't going to turn or do anything nearly as well as mine.  Maybe that is why it took 20 seconds level to level instead of 12 or 13.

 

“By the way, be careful where you get your numbers from, the last Triplane I flew I timed a 360 degree turn, from level to level again, so including rolling in and rolling out, and it was almost 20 seconds, even with Voss and a rotary engine it isn't going to be much less, certainly not anywhere near 5 seconds. Those figures you get from 1917 are measured by very uncertain means, not to mention the exaggerations made by manufacturers, pilots, and anybody with a point to make. I wouldn't put too much stock in contemporary figures, except in very general terms.”

 

Any thoughts on baldeagle’s comment above?

 

Edited by Chill31
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Of course I am not sure - as you say we cannot see his speed or altitude.  But I think the two turns starting at 1.20 are the ones to which Chill was referring.

 

I imagine getting the G, altitude and speed all exactly constant throughout the turn is as difficult in Chills Dr.1 as it is in the game.  I can just about do it in the  FC Fokker D.VII, but in the Dr.1  the sensitivity of the controls and general instability makes constant adjustments a must. We may be asking to much if we are expecting test pilot precision.

 

It is a pity that the FC planes do not come with the "Maximum performance turn" measured by Russian Bots shown in the Tech Specs page for all of the WW2 planes.  At least then you would have something consistent in-game measures to work with for your simulation comparisons.

 

Well in-game I did what I consider quite stable sustained 9 s turns to the left in the Dr1. The reason I did left turns is I fly much better going that way which is the same IRL actually (Gliders and light planes of course) so I should practice my right hand turns more. Anyway, at 1 Km altitude my C++ simulation indicates a sustained turn rate of 12.4 s for the Dr1 with a 122 hp Oberursel, i.e. that it would take 38% longer to do a similar turn. This is why I'm pursuing this to try to find out if I'm being pessimistic or FC optimistic.

 

Edit: The in-game test may have been at 750 m in which case the C++ gives about 12 s.

 

12 hours ago, Chill31 said:

1:20.  Here it is wings level to wings level in about 12 seconds, maybe a shade over.  

1:35 It is wings level to passing through the reference point (the sun) in a bank in 10 seconds.

1:50 My turn stagnates because I stalled and had to relax back pressure. Took 14 seconds

2:03 This was my best and most stable turn. 10 seconds with no roll in/out.  Roll in/out ads about 1.5 seconds per roll.

--All of these turns were done at approximately 55 mph, with the first ones starting at a higher speed and bleeding down to 55, and 3,000 ft MSL.  It was about 80*F outside though, not 59*

 

I do know who it is, and I think his info is already out there so I don't mind saying...it is Andrew King, former Old Rhinebeck Pilot.  He has never flown a Dr.I as accurate as mine.  ORAs Dr.Is are all...fat girls. They aren't going to turn or do anything nearly as well as mine.  Maybe that is why it took 20 seconds level to level instead of 12 or 13.

 

When I studied the video in more detail my attention was drawn to the instrument on the left. As far as I can tell this is a Garmin 296 or similar and the reading in the upper left hand corner should then be Knots Ground Speed. Unfortunately your IAS speed in Mph only shows a few times in the video and since the GPS based GS readout varies a lot its difficult to calibrate but it looks like 57-63 Knots GPS GS corresponds to a little over 80 mph IAS on your speedometer.

 

Regarding what is closest to a stationary turn in the video I did the exact same observation as you: The most steady turning with nose attitude held and stable g’s is around 2:02 to 2:12. But using the Garmin as a reference, it looks like you are dropping in speed from ca 63 Knots GS in the entry to 44-55 Knots IAS during the course of the turn. We could of course argue about the minutes of the readout and how accurate it is to do this connection between the Garmin GS and your IAS but I think it is pretty clear that you are losing speed in the 2:02 to 2:12 sequence meaning this is no sustained turn. The turns before that are more momentaneous in character IMHO (e.g. the 1:20 to 1:35 sequence) since the g is not held constant.

 

About the old Rhinebeck Dr1’s being so different to yours I don’t see by the specifications what could explain that your Dr1 can do a 10 s sustained turn whereas the Old Rhinebeck Dr1’s would require circa 18 s? The stated weight for the Old Rhinebeck replicas is 1290 lb (586 Kg) and they are powered by a Le Rhone. Why on earth would your machines produce such different results? Why deride them as “fat girls”?

 

I see now which 5 s you were referencing to and from theoretical calculations using simply Clmax, weight and wing area a 70-80 deg/s turn rate is quite achievable. However it is erroneous to take 360/72 to arrive at 5 s because while that may be achieved theoretically (though I doubt in practice) in a spiral dive but never in what IMO could be termed a turn. However, if you looked at the Javier Arango lecture I posted earlier on they may well back in the day have called that a "turn" as he explains about the different terminology used now and then.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

When I studied the video in more detail my attention was drawn to the instrument on the left. As far as I can tell this is a Garmin 296 or similar and the reading in the upper left hand corner should then be Knots Ground Speed. Unfortunately your IAS speed in Mph only shows a few times in the video and since the GPS based GS readout varies a lot its difficult to calibrate but it looks like 57-63 Knots GPS GS corresponds to a little over 80 mph IAS on your speedometer.

My airspeed indicator is always off by 10-20 mph, depending on my speed.  The faster I go, the more it is off, since my static port on the instrument dumps directly into the cockpit where the pressure decreases as speed increases.  At a given airspeed, it is consistently inaccurate though, so you have come up with the same estimate I made.

 

Regarding what is closest to a stationary turn in the video I did the exact same observation as you: The most steady turning with nose attitude held and stable g’s is around 2:02 to 2:12. But using the Garmin as a reference, it looks like you are dropping in speed from ca 63 Knots GS in the entry to 44-55 Knots IAS during the course of the turn. We could of course argue about the minutes of the readout and how accurate it is to do this connection between the Garmin GS and your IAS but I think it is pretty clear that you are losing speed in the 2:02 to 2:12 sequence meaning this is no sustained turn. The turns before that are more momentaneous in character IMHO (e.g. the 1:20 to 1:35 sequence) since the g is not held constant.

Watch the nose position and G loading. It is pretty consistent, but you are right, I could do better.  The speed on the GPS is not perfectly accurate either, and it has a slight lag.  Look for the lake off the nose about 2:05.  That is approximately 90 degrees off my initial heading, and the speed is already down to 45-50kts.  The rest of the turn takes 8 seconds which would put a full 360 degree turn at about 10.5 seconds.

 

About the old Rhinebeck Dr1’s being so different to yours I don’t see by the specifications what could explain that your Dr1 can do a 10 s sustained turn whereas the Old Rhinebeck Dr1’s would require circa 18 s? The stated weight for the Old Rhinebeck replicas is 1290 lb (586 Kg) and they are powered by a Le Rhone. Why on earth would your machines produce such different results? Why deride them as “fat girls”?

ORA only ever had one rotary powered Dr.I.  Cole Palen, to my knowledge, was the only person who EVER flew it.  The others were all powered by some sort of radial engine.  The current Dr.I, and the one that baldeagle flew, has a 220hp continental on it which has a dry weight of 450 lbs according to wikipedia.  That is 170 lbs more than the 80 Rhone, so even if our planes where built exactly the same (which they are not), they would be 170 lbs more than mine.  There is no way their Dr.I is at 1290 lbs (the original gross weight of the Dr.I).  They are likely in the 1500-1800 lb range which would give me an extra .35 G advantage over them.

 

I see now which 5 s you were referencing to and from theoretical calculations using simply Clmax, weight and wing area a 70-80 deg/s turn rate is quite achievable. However it is erroneous to take 360/72 to arrive at 5 s because while that may be achieved theoretically (though I doubt in practice) in a spiral dive but never in what IMO could be termed a turn. However, if you looked at the Javier Arango lecture I posted earlier on they may well back in the day have called that a "turn" as he explains about the different terminology used now and then.

Agreed.  5 seconds for a 360 degree turn is an impossibility in the Dr.I, and without knowing exactly what they meant by it, it isn't even worth considering in our analysis here.

 

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

My airspeed indicator is always off by 10-20 mph, depending on my speed.  The faster I go, the more it is off, since my static port on the instrument dumps directly into the cockpit where the pressure decreases as speed increases.  At a given airspeed, it is consistently inaccurate though, so you have come up with the same estimate I made.

 

Watch the nose position and G loading. It is pretty consistent, but you are right, I could do better.  The speed on the GPS is not perfectly accurate either, and it has a slight lag.  Look for the lake off the nose about 2:05.  That is approximately 90 degrees off my initial heading, and the speed is already down to 45-50kts.  The rest of the turn takes 8 seconds which would put a full 360 degree turn at about 10.5 seconds.

 

ORA only ever had one rotary powered Dr.I.  Cole Palen, to my knowledge, was the only person who EVER flew it.  The others were all powered by some sort of radial engine.  The current Dr.I, and the one that baldeagle flew, has a 220hp continental on it which has a dry weight of 450 lbs according to wikipedia.  That is 170 lbs more than the 80 Rhone, so even if our planes where built exactly the same (which they are not), they would be 170 lbs more than mine.  There is no way their Dr.I is at 1290 lbs (the original gross weight of the Dr.I).  They are likely in the 1500-1800 lb range which would give me an extra .35 G advantage over them.

 

A position error of 10-20 mph in an aircraft that flies at 50-100 mph! Damn, you are lucky to still be alive! :o:

 

On a more serious note, I assume you have a pitot somewhere to get the total pressure and using the static ports on the pitot you have or getting one that has static port and connecting those to your instruments seems like well invested money. In addition, I guess without proper static ports the accuracy of your altimeter will suffer as well?

 

About the rationale for a 10 s stationary turn time in a Dr1: I hear what you are saying about doing extrapolations from the 2:02 to 2:12 s sequence in your video but frankly I think there are to many unknowns right now given that speed was not constant and that the input is shaky since both the GPS GS you have access to is erratic and you seem to have (to put it mildly!) issues with the static input for IAS estimation. BTW where is your altimeter? Would be nice to see the horizon, altimeter and speedometer in the same frame. Tip: I recently got me a GoPro Hero 8 and you can set up a really wide field of view and the stabilization is simply superb: No shake whatsoever!

 

About Old Rhinebeck Dr1's: Check out their site info. They have 3 of them and only one with the Continental. The other two have Le Rhone engines. I will not judge their way of presenting the weights and if they are wrong or not. Anyway it does not matter that much: The weight added by the heavier Continental engine (ca 15% to the assumed T/O weight 575 Kg) is nothing compared to the power added (2.5 times more than the 85 hp you have) and the resulting deltas are as follows: Added weight adds about 3 s to turn time while the power gain cuts 6 s off giving a total gain of 3 s. So, if anything, the "fat girl" looks to be reckoned with and a 225 hp engine in a Dr1 is something I suspect most pilots in the Luftstreitkräfte would have killed for. As they say: "It ain't over till' the fat lady sings" and boy, can that gal sing!

 

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

On a more serious note, I assume you have a pitot somewhere to get the total pressure and using the static ports on the pitot you have or getting one that has static port and connecting those to your instruments seems like well invested money. In addition, I guess without proper static ports the accuracy of your altimeter will suffer as well?

---The ere are no static ports on the pitot. There is a separate connection on the back of the instrument for the static line.  A lot of guys fly their Dr1s with no airspeed indicator, and i do the same for the most part.  As long as the gunfight is on the horizon or lower, you will keep flying :)

 

About the rationale for a 10 s stationary turn time in a Dr1: I hear what you are saying about doing extrapolations from the 2:02 to 2:12 s sequence in your video but frankly I think there are to many unknowns right now given that speed was not constant and that the input is shaky since both the GPS GS you have access to is erratic and you seem to have (to put it mildly!) issues with the static input for IAS estimation. 

---The airspeed results are close enough to know that your model should be turning faster, and i think you have factored in a little too much drag.  5 mph difference won't make 4 (38% increase in time) seconds difference. Can you get your model to turn in 10-11 seconds at any speed? 

 

About Old Rhinebeck Dr1's: Check out their site info. They have 3 of them and only one with the Continental. The other two have Le Rhone engines. I will not judge their way of presenting the weights and if they are wrong or not. Anyway it does not matter that much: The weight added by the heavier Continental engine (ca 15% to the assumed T/O weight 575 Kg) is nothing compared to the power added (2.5 times more than the 85 hp you have) and the resulting deltas are as follows: Added weight adds about 3 s to turn time while the power gain cuts 6 s off giving a total gain of 3 s. So, if anything, the "fat girl" looks to be reckoned with and a 225 hp engine in a Dr1 is something I suspect most pilots in the Luftstreitkräfte would have killed for. As they say: "It ain't over till' the fat lady sings" and boy, can that gal sing!

--Hp doesn't translate directly.  Consider this, I am getting almost the same performance from my 85 hp le rhone as I was from 160 hp Lycoming (with a more coarse pitch propeller, I think I would exceed it).  The 220 hp continental has about the same displacemt as the 80 rhone, but it spins a propeller with an finer pitch to get more rpm (horsepower), thus sacrificing thrust by some margin.  So while it does have more hp, it is not producing a proportional increase in thrust.  At any rate, my turns out perform baldeagles numbers by a wide margin, so the only thing that can make such a difference is power to weight.  

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The airspeed results are close enough to know that your model should be turning faster, and i think you have factored in a little too much drag.  5 mph difference won't make 4 (38% increase in time) seconds difference. Can you get your model to turn in 10-11 seconds at any speed? 

 

Hp doesn't translate directly.  Consider this, I am getting almost the same performance from my 85 hp le rhone as I was from 160 hp Lycoming (with a more coarse pitch propeller, I think I would exceed it).  The 220 hp continental has about the same displacemt as the 80 rhone, but it spins a propeller with an finer pitch to get more rpm (horsepower), thus sacrificing thrust by some margin.  So while it does have more hp, it is not producing a proportional increase in thrust.  At any rate, my turns out perform baldeagles numbers by a wide margin, so the only thing that can make such a difference is power to weight. 

 

No, nothing in your video indicates that I have factored in too much drag. In addition, it’s not a question of how close the speeds are. The issue is that in a sustained turn the speed is held constant. What you posted in the video is a so-called instantaneous or momemtaneous turn in which the speed drops as you turn allowing you to turn faster than is possible in a stationary turn rate turn. As I posted before, the C++ Dr1 model I have can also generate a 10 s turn depending on the entry speed and the assumed speed loss in the turn. But again, that is not a sustained turn but a momentaneous turn, just like the one you posted in your video.

 

About converting the available horsepower to thrust: it’s simply a question of matching the propeller to the power output. Not only that, you need to decide if you want to optimize for speed or climb since the selected pitch will be different producing a different mix of climb and top speed depending on which way you go. This is also why it is sometimes difficult to compare flight test data from two aircraft with the same power. However, unless one is grossly incompetent in selecting propellers, there is no way that a 85 hp Dr1 outperforms a 225 hp Dr1 even if a 170 lb heavier engine and additional structure to carry that is added. Any designer would jump at that opportunity and if Anthony Fokker had access to a 225 hp (be it a 170 lb heavier one than the Le Rhone) he could have designed a Dr1 that would have wiped the floor with the competition.

 

But I think your last statement is correct: It’s all about P/W only you seem to have it backwards: Even with your highest assumed weight 1800 lb (which seems outrageous for adding a 170 lb heavier engine) the 225 hp Old Rhinebeck Dr1 has a much higher P/W ratio than your 85 hp Dr1. And finally, you can’t compare yours and baldeagle’s turns: He says about 18 s for a sustained turn rate turn while you have done a 10 s momentaneous turn rate turn. Apples and oranges.

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

. Any designer would jump at that opportunity and if Anthony Fokker had access to a 225 hp (be it a 170 lb heavier one than the Le Rhone) he could have designed a Dr1 that would have wiped the floor with the competition.

Fokker could use a reduction gear in this situation, to achieve optimal propeller speed.  However, those who manufacture such aircraft today do not have such an opportunity.

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

Fokker could use a reduction gear in this situation, to achieve optimal propeller speed.  However, those who manufacture such aircraft today do not have such an opportunity.

 

Yes, a reduction gear could be used but at whatever rpm you run the propeller shaft you will still need more blade area to absorb the increased power so in the end you will still have to work with diameter, pitch, number of blades and blade area to absorb the power today just as it was back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

No, nothing in your video indicates that I have factored in too much drag. In addition, it’s not a question of how close the speeds are. The issue is that in a sustained turn the speed is held constant. What you posted in the video is a so-called instantaneous or momemtaneous turn in which the speed drops as you turn allowing you to turn faster than is possible in a stationary turn rate turn. As I posted before, the C++ Dr1 model I have can also generate a 10 s turn depending on the entry speed and the assumed speed loss in the turn. But again, that is not a sustained turn but a momentaneous turn, just like the one you posted in your video.

--so model what you see in my video. Repeat it with your C++ model.  I'd like to see if you can repeat it. If you can, we may be able to provide a starting point for FC devs to modify the Dr.I.

 

About converting the available horsepower to thrust: it’s simply a question of matching the propeller to the power output. Not only that, you need to decide if you want to optimize for speed or climb since the selected pitch will be different producing a different mix of climb and top speed depending on which way you go. This is also why it is sometimes difficult to compare flight test data from two aircraft with the same power. However, unless one is grossly incompetent in selecting propellers, there is no way that a 85 hp Dr1 outperforms a 225 hp Dr1 even if a 170 lb heavier engine and additional structure to carry that is added. Any designer would jump at that opportunity and if Anthony Fokker had access to a 225 hp (be it a 170 lb heavier one than the Le Rhone) he could have designed a Dr1 that would have wiped the floor with the competition.

--Torque is a better way to compare airplane engines, because it takes torque to move air.  The 80 Rhone moves as much air as the 160 hp Lycoming...the 225 conti would need to weigh 420 lbs to have a proportional torque increase for its weight increase over the 80.  All of this is beside the point though.  The point is ORAs Dr.Is are not very accurate examples of the Fokker Dr.I, and relying on them for data is not going to be productive. 

 

But I think your last statement is correct: It’s all about P/W only you seem to have it backwards: Even with your highest assumed weight 1800 lb (which seems outrageous for adding a 170 lb heavier engine) the 225 hp Old Rhinebeck Dr1 has a much higher P/W ratio than your 85 hp Dr1. And finally, you can’t compare yours and baldeagle’s turns: He says about 18 s for a sustained turn rate turn while you have done a 10 s momentaneous turn rate turn. Apples and oranges.

--1800 lbs is not tough to do. Add brakes, modern instruments, heavy tubing, etc. It adds up quickly.  What is the turn rate at 2 Gs and 55 mph? What is it at 2Gs and 50 mph? It wasn't like I converted 30-40 mph into turn rate. It was maybe 5-7. So run the program at at various speed and see if you get about 10 seconds. I'll do it in a well established turn on my next flight and see what I get, but I doubt it will increase by 80%.

The FC dr1 should be much more docile near stall, and i think that is one of the bigger problems with it.  People would fight it a lot slower if it handled like the real bird.

 

They may have the induced drag model off slightly, but given the level flight speed and the speed at the top of the loop, I think it is not off by too much.  

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

The FC dr1 should be much more docile near stall, and i think that is one of the bigger problems with it.  People would fight it a lot slower if it handled like the real bird.

Chill, you have to buy all the other FC aircraft, and fly on them writing down the parameters in order for them to become "obedient" too :-)) Or do you want only one to become obedient to Dr1 and the rest to be naughty? 😉

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The FC dr1 should be much more docile near stall, and i think that is one of the bigger problems with it.  People would fight it a lot slower if it handled like the real bird.

 

They may have the induced drag model off slightly, but given the level flight speed and the speed at the top of the loop, I think it is not off by too much.  

 

For sure, as far as I can tell it's only a small adjustment that needs to be done. In addition, it’s not just the Dr1 that is affected but also the Camel since according to Javier Arango's tests the Camel's sustained turn rate time is also longer than it takes in FC.

 

That being said, as far as I can tell from comparing the Dr1 and Camel the relative performance in FC seems to be quite in order since both are turning better than expected. In addition to that I still think that in general it seems like the aircraft in FC should bleed more energy when you manouver but if they adjust the induced drag then that will probably come by itself. Also, I assume the induced drag issue is a general model thing affecting all aircraft meaning they will probably all turn a bit slower if they decide to tune this.

 

Maybe all this comes across as sounding too negative and critical but that is just the nature of engineers: we look for problems and try to solve them, all that is good is never mentioned. And why should it? Our motto is if it works then don’t fix it! ;)

 

Anyway, if they ever make a second installment on FC with new aircraft I will snap it up in a heartbeat. This is a great simulator and I hope they keep developing it.

 

If you have the time, it would be very interesting to hear more about the Dr1 from the pilot’s perspective in terms of stick forces, roll rates and general handling both in air and landing and taxing etc. As an example how is roll rate affected by speed? How difficult is it to counter the torque? I assume it’s OK at most speeds but gets difficult when you go slow and manouver? One thing that I assume the Dr1 has going for it is the benign stall characteristics? IRL a Dr1 pilot would probably feel more confident pushing the envelope than a Camel pilot that risks a nasty stall/spin when pushing the limits?

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

If you have the time, it would be very interesting to hear more about the Dr1 from the pilot’s perspective in terms of stick forces, roll rates and general handling both in air and landing and taxing etc. As an example how is roll rate affected by speed? How difficult is it to counter the torque? I assume it’s OK at most speeds but gets difficult when you go slow and manouver? One thing that I assume the Dr1 has going for it is the benign stall characteristics? IRL a Dr1 pilot would probably feel more confident pushing the envelope than a Camel pilot that risks a nasty stall/spin when pushing the limits?

Roll rate deteriorates with speed, by how much, i haven't measured.  Adverse yaw increases by a lot too as it slows down.

 

The torque of the engine is not too difficult to counter.  It has about the same torque as the Lycoming 160hp.  The gyroscopic effects are pronounced when maneuvering,  and you can see in this video just how much it really takes to counter it.  

 

 

I haven't flown a Camel, but I have flown a Ryan OTW, which is supposed to have the same airfoil as the Pup or Camel.  It had a relatively easy sta as well.  Contrast that with the fat wing on the RV8 which has a very pronounced stall and nose drop.  For sure, wing shape plays an important role in stall characteristics, but without actually flying the Camel, i couldn't give an accurate answer as to how it stalls. 

 

I can say that the Dr1 lives to fight slow.  I xan only imagine what it will do with 50% more power!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are *all* in a unique position here, thanks to Chill. He not only has an authentic Dr.1 powered by an authentic engine, but he is interested in our goofy little computer flight sim and willing to go out and literally spend time and treasure to QA test our video game.

 

That's pretty amazing, and I'm extremely grateful. I hope we all are!

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ich warte darauf, dass der Dr1 repariert wird!

Kein Flugzeug, weder damals noch heute, würde fliegen oder mit einem Aufzug entfernt werden, der um 45 Grad nach unten gesetzt ist.

Jedes Flugzeug sollte mit einer bestimmten Geschwindigkeit gerade fliegen und nicht klettern oder absteigen. Seit RoF fliegen wir die Dr1 auf diese Weise!


Damals wurde dies mehrfach kritisiert und bewiesen und ist noch nicht behoben. Ich verstehe nicht, warum die Programmierer dies nicht behoben haben.

Es gibt in dieser Hinsicht Literatur über die Dr1. sowie die Grundeinstellung des Flugzeugs zu dieser Zeit.

Warum sind die Entwickler solche Ignoranten?

 
Edited by III./ZG15_Siggie
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III./ZG15_Siggie said:
Ich warte darauf, dass der Dr1 repariert wird!

Kein Flugzeug, weder damals noch heute, würde fliegen oder mit einem Aufzug entfernt werden, der um 45 Grad nach unten gesetzt ist.

Jedes Flugzeug sollte mit einer bestimmten Geschwindigkeit gerade fliegen und nicht klettern oder absteigen. Seit RoF fliegen wir die Dr1 auf diese Weise!


Damals wurde dies mehrfach kritisiert und bewiesen und ist noch nicht behoben. Ich verstehe nicht, warum die Programmierer dies nicht behoben haben.

Es gibt in dieser Hinsicht Literatur über die Dr1. sowie die Grundeinstellung des Flugzeugs zu dieser Zeit.

Warum sind die Entwickler solche Ignoranten?

 

 

Please post original documents that support this

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J5_Adam said:

 

Please post original documents that support this

I think he is referring to the down elevator deflection in the visual model of the Dr.1.  In this case, he is correct that the depicted elevator position is quite extreme.

 

1 hour ago, III./ZG15_Siggie said:
Ich warte darauf, dass der Dr1 repariert wird!

Kein Flugzeug, weder damals noch heute, würde fliegen oder mit einem Aufzug entfernt werden, der um 45 Grad nach unten gesetzt ist.

Jedes Flugzeug sollte mit einer bestimmten Geschwindigkeit gerade fliegen und nicht klettern oder absteigen. Seit RoF fliegen wir die Dr1 auf diese Weise!


Damals wurde dies mehrfach kritisiert und bewiesen und ist noch nicht behoben. Ich verstehe nicht, warum die Programmierer dies nicht behoben haben.

Es gibt in dieser Hinsicht Literatur über die Dr1. sowie die Grundeinstellung des Flugzeugs zu dieser Zeit.

Warum sind die Entwickler solche Ignoranten?

 

The Dr.1 ALWAYS flies with some nose down elevator.  I am working on a stability demonstration video of my Dr.1.  It behaves like the aircraft in FC/ROF, but the elevator does not appear to be deflected in such an extreme way.  

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

I think he is referring to the down elevator deflection in the visual model of the Dr.1.  In this case, he is correct that the depicted elevator position is quite extreme.

 

The Dr.1 ALWAYS flies with some nose down elevator.  I am working on a stability demonstration video of my Dr.1.  It behaves like the aircraft in FC/ROF, but the elevator does not appear to be deflected in such an extreme way.  

 

I realize that about the visual elevator deflection. What he's incorrect about is how he says, all aircraft are designed to fly a certain way. All I've heard about the Dr1 is that you always have to be flying that aircraft or it flies you! Take your hands off the control column of many WW1 birds and they'll loop on you. 

 

I don't understand all of the silly complaints in here. Just fly FFS

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I think he is referring to the down elevator deflection in the visual model of the Dr.1.  In this case, he is correct that the depicted elevator position is quite extreme.

 

As I've tried to explain previously,  the control deflection rendered in-game is purely a representation of the force being applied to the joystick,  it does not imply that amount of deflection would be needed or even possible in flight.  The game could be programmed to compensate for airspeed, so that the faster the plane flies,  less control deflection is needed and less deflection can be achieved.  While such functionality would be more realistic, inevitably it would cause players to think something were not working properly,  so best left as is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sie müssen nur in eine Bibliothek
gehen, wo Sie genügend Informationsmaterial finden.
Außerdem gibt es genügend Filmmaterial auf YT, um mich zu bestätigen.
Es ist auch meine Aufgabe, und seit über 30 Jahren, Flugzeuge fliegen zu lassen.
Was die Programmierer ignorieren, wird in der ersten Sesmester Aerodynamik gelehrt.
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, III./ZG15_Siggie said:
Sie müssen nur in eine Bibliothek
gehen, wo Sie genügend Informationsmaterial finden.
Außerdem gibt es genügend Filmmaterial auf YT, um mich zu bestätigen.
Es ist auch meine Aufgabe, und seit über 30 Jahren, Flugzeuge fliegen zu lassen.
Was die Programmierer ignorieren, wird in der ersten Sesmester Aerodynamik gelehrt.

 

Please post your replies here in English, so we can understand what you are saying.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

As I've tried to explain previously,  the control deflection rendered in-game is purely a representation of the force being applied to the joystick,  it does not imply that amount of deflection would be needed or even possible in flight.  The game could be programmed to compensate for airspeed, so that the faster the plane flies,  less control deflection is needed and less deflection can be achieved.  While such functionality would be more realistic, inevitably it would cause players to think something were not working properly,  so best left as is.

 

I'm curious to know why you would think that. If less control deflection can be achieved at higher airspeeds, as is already the case on the WWII machines in this game, it would lead to less extreme player inputs and wing failures under g load.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I'm curious to know why you would think that. If less control deflection can be achieved at higher airspeeds, as is already the case on the WWII machines in this game, it would lead to less extreme player inputs and wing failures under g load.

 

Rendered Deflection != Effective Deflection.  That was my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

As I've tried to explain previously,  the control deflection rendered in-game is purely a representation of the force being applied to the joystick,  it does not imply that amount of deflection would be needed or even possible in flight.  The game could be programmed to compensate for airspeed, so that the faster the plane flies,  less control deflection is needed and less deflection can be achieved.  While such functionality would be more realistic, inevitably it would cause players to think something were not working properly,  so best left as is.

 

The deflection required from the Dr1 elevator is affected by speed - the faster you fly, at a given altitude, the more forward stick pressure you need to stay level.  This is because with a CoL in front of the CoG the more lift you add the more the nose will pitch up.  This may be countered by the tail moment to an extent but not equally.  I can fly level (slight phugoid) with zero forward or backward  stick pressure in the FC  Dr1 from about 200m to 7.500m, if I find the right rpms.  When I do that the elevator visually is slightly down.

 

The CAS shown on the HUD in each case is about the same. The ~TAS shown on the wing anemometer increases with height. 

 

The most likely explanation is not that the developers are all idiots,  omitting basic aerodynamic forces, as you and our new German speaking friend would have us believe, but that the balance of the game Dr.1 is a more tail heavy than that of Chill.  

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The deflection required from the Dr1 elevator is affected by speed - the faster you fly, at a given altitude, the more forward stick pressure you need to stay level.  This is because with a CoL in front of the CoG the more lift you add the more the nose will pitch up.  This may be countered by the tail moment to an extent but not equally.  I can fly level (slight phugoid) with zero forward or backward  stick pressure in the FC  Dr1 from about 200m to 7.500m, if I find the right rpms.  When I do that the elevator visually is slightly down.

 

The CAS shown on the HUD in each case is about the same. The ~TAS shown on the wing anemometer increases with height. 

 

The most likely explanation is not that the developers are all idiots,  omitting basic aerodynamic forces, as you and our new German speaking friend would have us believe, but that the balance of the game Dr.1 is a more tail heavy than that of Chill.  

 

 All I can say to that is read what I actually write, not what you think or wish I'd written.

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

 

 All I can say to that is read what I actually write, not what you think or wish I'd written.

 

"The game could be programmed to compensate for airspeed, so that the faster the plane flies,  less control deflection is needed and less deflection can be achieved. While such functionality would be more realistic,...."

 

You could program everything to fly straight and level all the time, but it would not be more realistic.  Very simple - if the CoG is behind the CoL, the faster the plane flies at a given altitude, the more control deflection is needed to fly level. 

 

Given that you have previously made the preposterous assertion that precession is not modeled in FC/Box,  you will perhaps understand why your pronouncements on what might be more or less realistic should not be taken seriously.  How people treat my pronouncements is entirely a matter for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

The deflection required from the Dr1 elevator is affected by speed - the faster you fly, at a given altitude, the more forward stick pressure you need to stay level.  This is because with a CoL in front of the CoG the more lift you add the more the nose will pitch up.  This may be countered by the tail moment to an extent but not equally.  I can fly level (slight phugoid) with zero forward or backward  stick pressure in the FC  Dr1 from about 200m to 7.500m, if I find the right rpms.  When I do that the elevator visually is slightly down.

 

I had always wondered if some of the nose-up pitching was also from the drag of the top wing producing a couple around the CoG?

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...