Pfalz D.IIIa and Sopwith Camel

[yaan98]

1C's announcement says we're gonna be gettin' some new toys soon.... OH YEAH!

Edited September 11, 2018 by yaan98

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, yaan98 said:

1C's announcement says we're gonna be gettin' some new toys soon.... YAY!

 

What announcement where?

[yaan98]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

What announcement where?

 

got it in an email. also, with an online link.

 

https://il2sturmovik.com/informburo/ad2181cf4d9f4abd960099e9828bb8ae/04fb508defdc55143c424b52629ee3f5/

[Trooper117]

 

Quote

 Meanwhile, Pfalz D.IIIa and Sopwith Camel are being developed for Flying Circus Volume I, the work on new WWI pilots animations has also started.

 

This was stated on update 200 on August 24th, nothing about 'soon'...

 

Your link simply states they will be available... 'The Pfalz D.IIIa and Sopwith Camel are up next and will be released in the coming weeks.' 

[yaan98]

14 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

 

This was stated on update 200 on August 24th, nothing about 'soon'...

 

Your link simply states they will be available... 'The Pfalz D.IIIa and Sopwith Camel are up next and will be released in the coming weeks.' 

To me, soon='coming weeks'. Before 'being developed'=no timeline i.e. next month, year, century???

Edited September 11, 2018 by yaan98

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, yaan98 said:

To me, soon='coming weeks'. Before 'being developed'=no timeline i.e. next month, year, century???

Two weeks. Be sure.™

[Cynic_Al]

3 hours ago, yaan98 said:

1C's announcement says we're gonna be gettin' some new toys soon.... OH YEAH!

 

Yes but which Camel are you getting? something historically credible or something that struggles to reach 100MPH?

[Nightrise]

It will be nice to get some choice for the flying circus aircraft and hopefully some more active MP. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

49 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Yes but which Camel are you getting? something historically credible or something that struggles to reach 100MPH?

 

Yes.

[Muff_Huggar]

Out of new IL-2 player curiosity, how do you know when an update is available? I think I read that you need to run the launcher  and it will automatically install new updates. Is that correct? 

[Tomi_099]

.... OH YEAH!

[Ceowulf]

47 minutes ago, Muff_Huggar said:

Out of new IL-2 player curiosity, how do you know when an update is available? I think I read that you need to run the launcher  and it will automatically install new updates. Is that correct? 

That’s right, automatic from the launcher screen.  If your internet is slow and you plan to play after dinner just remember to start the launcher screen before you eat.  

 

Ceowulf <><   

[PatrickAWlson]

Without even the first preview of the models I would think that weeks means more than a couple.  Still, it is in progress and the new team has already delivered two planes, so we know that they can.

On 9/11/2018 at 3:29 PM, Cynic_Al said:

 

Yes but which Camel are you getting? something historically credible or something that struggles to reach 100MPH?

 

The Camel could hit 118 MPH at SL on a good day, straight and level full throttle, with a nice new engine (preferably Le Rhone, the Clergets sucked) .  Operationally it probably wasn't even that fast ... did I mention that the Clergets sucked.

 

The very slow DRI could manage about 115 at SL (the oft quoted 103 MPH is at 10K feet).  Again, this is also on a very good day.  The Oberursels also sucked, possibly even worse than the Clergets, mostly due to ersatz lubrication.

 

The Pfalz and Albatros were faster than the camel, but not by much. Don't buy into the lazy internet information.  They quote British tests of war weary captured planes.

 

Neither the Pfalz nor Albatros were bad.  It's just that they were not really good either.  The SE5a and SPAD were a lot faster (15 MPH is a lot by WWI standards).  The Camel was not too much slower and a much better turner. 

 

Anyhow, per the Camel, the British pilots who flew it joked that they were either going to be aces or dead, because running away was not an option.  Yes, it should go faster than 100 MPH, but not by all that much.

 

[BadBud]

Anything will be more than acceptable.  

BadBud

[Cynic_Al]

9 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Without even the first preview of the models I would think that weeks means more than a couple.  Still, it is in progress and the new team has already delivered two planes, so we know that they can.

 

The Camel could hit 118 MPH at SL on a good day, straight and level full throttle, with a nice new engine (preferably Le Rhone, the Clergets sucked) .  Operationally it probably wasn't even that fast ... did I mention that the Clergets sucked.

 

The very slow DRI could manage about 115 at SL (the oft quoted 103 MPH is at 10K feet).  Again, this is also on a very good day.  The Oberursels also sucked, possibly even worse than the Clergets, mostly due to ersatz lubrication.

 

Anyhow, per the Camel, the British pilots who flew it joked that they were either going to be aces or dead, because running away was not an option.  Yes, it should go faster than 100 MPH, but not by all that much.

 

 

Leaving aside the source of your figures, they suggest that the Dr1 would be significantly faster than the Camel at all altitudes, while anecdotal evidence suggests it was practically the only German fighter the Camel could catch.

[PatrickAWlson]

3 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Leaving aside the source of your figures, they suggest that the Dr1 would be significantly faster than the Camel at all altitudes, while anecdotal evidence suggests it was practically the only German fighter the Camel could catch.

 

I think you might have misread.  I have the Camel a little faster than the DRI  (118 vs approx 115).  The Camel would be quite a bit faster in a dive.  DRI has a better rate of climb and better instantaneous climb.  Both turn ridiculously well.  Pretty evenly matched ... so I think we basically agree.

 

I don't know what the speeds would be at different altitudes, but I imagine that the Camel would always be a bit faster.  Both had rotary engines that were not well suited for high altitude and both were mostly used at low to mid altitudes.  As far as I am aware the only rotary that had anything like decent high altitude performance was the Snipe, and even then the SE5a and Dolphin were better up high.

 

As far as the Camel catching the DRI or any other plane, I'm sure that sometimes it could and sometimes it couldn't.  With these old crates there was a lot of variability in performance.  Engines wore out very quickly.  Airframes warped (Pfalz was famous for that).  In the game we get pristine, factory fresh examples with no flaws in workmanship.  The real pilots didn't have that luxury.  Pilot skill would also come into play.  A better pilot would know how to keep his plane clean and get the most speed out of it.  So when a pilot account says he did or didn't catch someone that is that pilot in that crate on that day.  

 

One thing I am not taking into account is the Bentley engined Camels.  1918 and only used by RNAS or former RNAS units.  Those would have been somewhat faster (still not fast) but I don't have any numbers as to how much.

[Cynic_Al]

15 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think you might have misread.  I have the Camel a little faster than the DRI  (118 vs approx 115).  The Camel would be quite a bit faster in a dive.  DRI has a better rate of climb and better instantaneous climb.  Both turn ridiculously well.  Pretty evenly matched ... so I think we basically agree.

 

 

I did not mis-read anything. For a Camel to start life capable of 118 then to drop to not much more than 100, would require a drop in power far greater than the percentage drop in speed. Were that to happen, the engine would be classified as un-serviceable.

[PatrickAWlson]

So we're talking around each other.   I said the Camel should be faster than the DRI, just not by much.  You said that I had the Camel slower at all altitudes.  If you mean that if the Camel could only do 100 MPH at seal level ... yeah, that would be bad.  

[Raptorattacker]

On 9/15/2018 at 11:26 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

I said the Camel should be faster than the DRI, just not by much.

A mate of one of my Brothers is ACTUALLY a Sopwith, direct line. How's that eh? He's called 'Big Dave' and he's definitely related, 100%!!

[Cybermat47]

2 minutes ago, Raptorattacker said:

A mate of one of my Brothers is ACTUALLY a Sopwith, direct line. How's that eh? He's called 'Big Dave' and he's definitely related, 100%!!

 

I hope that you’re saying he’s descended from the aircraft designer, not from one of the aircraft... I don’t even want to think about that 

 

But seriously, that’s awesome

[Raptorattacker]

7 minutes ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

I hope that you’re saying he’s descended from the aircraft designer, not from one of the aircraft... I don’t even want to think about that 

I am saying exactly that!! He has actually got 2 little wheels instead of proper feet and makes a noise similar to a farm tractor on helium whenever he moves from one place to another!! 

No, seriously, it IS quite cool innit?

[SeaW0lf]

 

[unreasonable]

On 9/15/2018 at 1:10 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think you might have misread.  I have the Camel a little faster than the DRI  (118 vs approx 115).  The Camel would be quite a bit faster in a dive.  DRI has a better rate of climb and better instantaneous climb.  Both turn ridiculously well.  Pretty evenly matched ... so I think we basically agree.

 

I don't know what the speeds would be at different altitudes, but I imagine that the Camel would always be a bit faster.  Both had rotary engines that were not well suited for high altitude and both were mostly used at low to mid altitudes.  As far as I am aware the only rotary that had anything like decent high altitude performance was the Snipe, and even then the SE5a and Dolphin were better up high.

 

As far as the Camel catching the DRI or any other plane, I'm sure that sometimes it could and sometimes it couldn't.  With these old crates there was a lot of variability in performance.  Engines wore out very quickly.  Airframes warped (Pfalz was famous for that).  In the game we get pristine, factory fresh examples with no flaws in workmanship.  The real pilots didn't have that luxury.  Pilot skill would also come into play.  A better pilot would know how to keep his plane clean and get the most speed out of it.  So when a pilot account says he did or didn't catch someone that is that pilot in that crate on that day.  

 

One thing I am not taking into account is the Bentley engined Camels.  1918 and only used by RNAS or former RNAS units.  Those would have been somewhat faster (still not fast) but I don't have any numbers as to how much.

 

Both the Pup and the Tripe were excellent at altitude: indeed the Pup was more competitive with the Albatrossen the higher it could get, and the Tripe was just superior to the DII & DIII in most respects at altitude, though obviously hampered by having only one gun.  They may not have been faster as such, but their comparative performance was clearly not particularly hampered by having a rotary engine vs the in-line Germans.

 

I agree about the catching part though. Also whether you can catch someone in a reasonable time is relevant: if you cannot do that it does not necessarily mean that you are slower: just that the closure rate is insufficient to catch someone in a sensible time.  Similarly with catching a diving aircraft: you may be catching them up in level flight, then falling behind when you both dive.  This used to happen to me all the time in RoF when chasing 2-seaters: their extra weight may give them an edge once they dive for their own lines.

[SeaW0lf]

The Sopwith Triplane was faster than the Albatros D.III at sea level, period. So whatever they did with the nerfing, was related to a below-par multiplayer wining crowd than anything. They should / have to fix it.

[Cynic_Al]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

The Sopwith Triplane was faster than the Albatros D.III at sea level, period. So whatever they did with the nerfing, was related to a below-par multiplayer wining crowd than anything. They should / have to fix it.

 

Which must give rise to the question: What will be the reaction when they don't?

[SeaW0lf]

25 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

Which must give rise to the question: What will be the reaction when they don't?

 

At this point we can just point the errors. If they will do something about it is up to them. But yes, I don't expect anything. 

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Both the Pup and the Tripe were excellent at altitude: indeed the Pup was more competitive with the Albatrossen the higher it could get,

They differed in wing loading. That's about it.

 

The Pup could go up to 6'500 m altitude (provided both Pup and pilot were in shape), whereas wing loading of the Albatros didn't permit this altitude, lest fyling a turn at this altitude. Performance degradation is about equal in both rotary or inline engine. The Pups were like little balloons 500 meters above the Albatri, trying to dive on them and then trying to climb up again. If they had a free rotating machine gun on the Albatros they could have "popped" one Pup after the other. below 5'500 meters Any Abatros drive could have massacred any Pup at leisure.

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

They differed in wing loading. That's about it.

 

The Pup could go up to 6'500 m altitude (provided both Pup and pilot were in shape), whereas wing loading of the Albatros didn't permit this altitude, lest fyling a turn at this altitude. Performance degradation is about equal in both rotary or inline engine. The Pups were like little balloons 500 meters above the Albatri, trying to dive on them and then trying to climb up again. If they had a free rotating machine gun on the Albatros they could have "popped" one Pup after the other. below 5'500 meters Any Abatros drive could have massacred any Pup at leisure.

 

Errr yes, but Albatross did not have a free rotating gun, did they? My point was simply that the idea that rotaries = low altitude has somehow got into people's heads and it is not in line with the facts.  Pups had a 80 or 100 HP engine: a DII had 160 HP.  Hardly surprising that in most scenarios the Pup was in trouble.  Tripehounds gobbled up Albatross feathers and all.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

My point was simply that the idea that rotaries = low altitude has somehow got into people's heads and it is not in line with the facts. 

Oh, absolutely.

[Ceowulf]

13 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

The Sopwith Triplane was faster than the Albatros D.III at sea level, period. So whatever they did with the nerfing, was related to a below-par multiplayer wining crowd than anything. They should / have to fix it.

I don't think I've actually read one person defending the ROF Triplane speed/performance since that update.  Some said a casualty of using the camel engine in its code.  (Or something.)  Hopefully, if we get a Triplane here, it'll be with a revisited FM.  A direct import from ROF on that one would be under IL2:GB standards.

 

And since we're apparently allowed to talk about FMs here.  I really hope all decisions for WW1 planes, and especially the popular ones like the camel, are made for accuracy and not gameplay, whatever the rationale used to explain those deviations has been.

 

 The new Dr1 rocks, albeit a little slowly, so I have a lot of hope the Camel and others will too.

 

Ceowulf<><

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Ceowulf

[Garven]

Not sure where to post this but in the IL-2 control settings menu there is a spot for DVIIF altitude throttle control 

[Cynic_Al]

21 hours ago, Ceowulf said:

  Hopefully, if we get a Triplane here, it'll be with a revisited FM. 

 

I prefer my chances of winning tonight's rollover.

[Chill31]

From a gentleman who has flown the Camel (rotary), the Pup (rotary), and the Dr.I (rotary): "The camel rolls better than the pup and about the same as the Dr1 . Stick forces are not too bad on the camel or the pup but torque and gyroscopic forces are greater in the camel than the other two"

 

My question posed to him: how does the roll of the Sopwith Camel and Pup compare to the Fokker Dr.I? in terms of roll rate and stick force.

[ZachariasX]

12 hours ago, Garven_Dreis said:

Not sure where to post this but in the IL-2 control settings menu there is a spot for DVIIF altitude throttle control 

This should be a function of the Ju-52 for leaning mixture at altitude.

[Trooper117]

On 9/22/2018 at 9:39 AM, Garven_Dreis said:

Not sure where to post this but in the IL-2 control settings menu there is a spot for DVIIF altitude throttle control 

 

That's because we are getting that version as well...

[Cynic_Al]

On 9/22/2018 at 9:39 AM, Garven_Dreis said:

Not sure where to post this but in the IL-2 control settings menu there is a spot for DVIIF altitude throttle control 

 

But no mention of the Pfalz D.XII that also uses it. Of course not, it's due in a later module....yes I'm confident it will come....they said it would so it must....I expect.....probably.

[Nightrise]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

But no mention of the Pfalz D.XII that also uses it. Of course not, it's due in a later module....yes I'm confident it will come....they said it would so it must....I expect.....probably.

they haven't said anything about the pfalz D.XII 

[Sgt_Joch]

As others have said the problem with the ROF Camel is that it was artificially nerfed based on dubious "anecdotal evidence".

 

Various British flight tests have the 130 hp Clerget Camel reaching 104-113 mph at 10,000 feet and climbing to 10,000 feet in 10.5 to 11.75 minutes. After the last round of FM changes, the ROF Camel needed 16 minutes to reach 10,000 feet. 

 

However, I will reserve judgment until we actually get it in game.

[Sgt_Joch]

I had done a lot of research when I was more into RoF. Here is some I had posted on the site relating to the issues with the "Clerget" engine. As with a lot of issues relating to WW1 aviation, it is difficult to get clear-cut answers.

"The major issue with the early Camels seems to have been with the 130 hp Clerget engines, although looking at various threads on the Aerodrome forum and various reference books, this is what I had gleaned of the situation:

1. British license built  Clerget engines were supposed to be of poorer quality than the french built models (more on that below), but according to production records, of the 1500 or so Clerget engines the RFC accepted in 1917, 879 (58%) came from France;

2. The Clergets were originally chosen by the Admiralty which prioritized reliability over other factors;

3. According to some sources, most of the quality issues with the Clergets built by Gwynne, the main British supplier, had been resolved by the end of 1916;

4. The bad reputation of british license built engine was propagated, in part, by French manufacturers to cover up design issues with their engines;

5. The main problem with the Clergets appears to have been a design issue, the piston ("obdurator") rings wore out prematurely, sometimes failing completely in as little as 15 hours. As they wore down, it would cause a loss of compression/power in the engine. However, the Clergets was a very simple design and a complete stripping/overhaul of the engine could be done at the squadron level in as little as half a day. The RNAS, which had a very strict maintenance schedule, does not appear to have had the same issue with their Clergets in the Triplane which suggests there may have been a maintenance issue with the RFC squadrons;"

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[unreasonable]

Another simple factor that is relevant to the Nu-Camel is that FC is set in 1918. So the "it's an early Camel" excuse will not wash.