Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yaan98

Pfalz D.IIIa and Sopwith Camel

Recommended Posts

I would highly suggest reading 'Sopwith Camel: King of Combat' by Chaz Bowyer. ISBN 0-946627-49-5

 

Lots of info and instructions on how to fly the Camel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all comes down to the engine for the camel; and the camel was around for a long time and had a lot of them.

 

Early camel to late camel is a big difference in performance (by WW1 standards); In IL-2 we have different models of the same aircraft for that reason.

 

Luckily, we might be able to use engine mods for the camel to represent this.  I would like to see different engines available to the camel, to allow mission makers to have camels in early scenarios without having to use a late engine (and vise-versa).

 

Part of the camel whining in RoF is that we had camels on 1917 maps flying around with 1918 performance.  Then they nerfed it, which for the engine it supposedly had, was justified; But they nerfed it quite a bit too far.  The mods system of IL-2 can solve our camels woes, and I believe they will use it this way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camel weights also varied, from 1387 lb to 1567lb.

 

Camel engines:

130 Clerget

140 Clerget

110 Le Rhone

150 BR1

150 Mono

170 Le Rhone

150 Gnome

Share this post


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

I would highly suggest reading 'Sopwith Camel: King of Combat' by Chaz Bowyer. ISBN 0-946627-49-5

 

Lots of info and instructions on how to fly the Camel.

 

 

We should probably all read that; one never knows when an improbable chain of events will cause one of us to have to pilot a real Sopwith Camel without any training.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It all comes down to the engine for the camel; and the camel was around for a long time and had a lot of them.

 

Early camel to late camel is a big difference in performance (by WW1 standards); In IL-2 we have different models of the same aircraft for that reason.

 

Luckily, we might be able to use engine mods for the camel to represent this.  I would like to see different engines available to the camel, to allow mission makers to have camels in early scenarios without having to use a late engine (and vise-versa).

 

Part of the camel whining in RoF is that we had camels on 1917 maps flying around with 1918 performance.  Then they nerfed it, which for the engine it supposedly had, was justified; But they nerfed it quite a bit too far.  The mods system of IL-2 can solve our camels woes, and I believe they will use it this way.

 

Perhaps we need engine options, but remember that FC is being sold as a 1918 game, so having a Camel that performs like a "1917" Camel (and a worn out one at that) would be unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice the "110" Le Rhone is more powerful than the 130 Clerget

Now you know why there are so many confusing numbers regarding the Camel. Lots of engine variations.

Edited by Chill31
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the "110 hp" Le Rhone actually produced over 130 hp. The nominal HP figure you always see is apparently the design HP, the actual HP figure is often higher. For example the "180 HP" Hispano-Suiza v8 in the SPAD VII actually produced over 250 hp at 2200-2300 RPM. Of course the HP figures on a rotary are a bit misleading, because of their design, they seem to produce a lot more usable torque than a comparable inline engine.

 

The 140 HP Clerget was a higher compression version of the standard 130 HP Clerget. It started to be produced in the summer of 1917 and would probably be the one used in 1918.

 

On October 31st 1918, the RAF had a total of 1342 Clerget, 385 B.R.1 and 821 Le Rhone or Gnome Monosoupape equipped Camels in its inventory.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the type rating had some meaning, as it defined the prop, as seen here on a Swiss N.28 with the 9N engine:

Spoiler

n28prop_1.jpg

 

Thus, the actual expected power outout must have been a known quantity, else couldn't match a prop.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yes, from what I have seen, there is some correlation but it is not perfect. You only had fixed pitch props which were designed to give their optimum performance at a set RPM, usually around the 1200-1400 RPM range. The nominal HP appears to be the HP produced at this optimum RPM . That is what the 160/170/180 HP Mercedes engines refers to.

 

you will notice that engines which produced higher RPM and there were many 1918 inline engines running at 1800-2200 RPM used reduction gears so the prop would still only be producing 1200-1400 RPM or so.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 4:39 PM, nightrise said:

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

 

As I recall, the original announcement implied that the intention was to rebuild the content of RoF  in IL2, spread over four volumes. By implication the Pfalz DXII would have to be included.

The bizarre thing is that re-reading the announcement I can find no reference to the 'four volumes' assertion. Could I be mistaken or has it subtly been amended?

Share this post


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

 

As I recall, the original announcement implied that the intention was to rebuild the content of RoF  in IL2, spread over four volumes. By implication the Pfalz DXII would have to be included.

The bizarre thing is that re-reading the announcement I can find no reference to the 'four volumes' assertion. Could I be mistaken or has it subtly been amended?

I don't remember 4 volumes being a thing that was said. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

As I recall, the original announcement implied that the intention was to rebuild the content of RoF  in IL2, spread over four volumes. By implication the Pfalz DXII would have to be included.

The bizarre thing is that re-reading the announcement I can find no reference to the 'four volumes' assertion. Could I be mistaken or has it subtly been amended?

 

Four volumes was never mentioned in any official announcement. I would have picked up on it and written about it on Stormbirds for sure.

 

Rise of Flight does have about 40 aircraft so 4 volumes does make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2018 at 3:11 AM, unreasonable said:

 

Yes they do An.Petrovich discusses it here:

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/1979-gyroscopic-precession/

 

 

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


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

 

Because I know what gyroscopic precession is and I've flown all the RoF planes in which its effects should manifest themselves.

 

Since this is a rather gross error, and other people who read this might be inclined to believe this error, I will take a minute here to address it.

 

First, read here.

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyroscopes/onetofour.html

 

Second, go into ROF or FC in the Fokker Dr1.

 

In level flight, pitch up a little bit and pitch down.  Notice when you pitch up, the nose yaws slightly to the right, and when you pitch down, the nose yaws slightly to the left.  

 

That is gyroscopic precession, and it is 100% modeled in both ROF and FC.  Once you have read about precession, done the demo I mentioned, and seen for yourself that precession is modeled, would you please go and delete/correct your previous posts so as not to confuse anyone who may come across them?

 

 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hello just chiming in on the Precession thingy. 

 

In my own tests using spinning things. ( easy to do yourself ) 

 

I noted stuff:

Indeed we get a reaction out of a spinning wheel if you nose it up/dwn/left/rght.

( by holding the axle and twisting it in the right direction)

Small inputs create a small reaction , and larger inputs create a larger reaction)

 

Also we get a tendency for the spinning wheel to yaw in one direction all on it's own.

( Spin it up and hold one end of the axle and it will slowly turn around )

 

Yes you can see all of this in RoF to a degree.

 

and this is where things maybe coming unstuck.

 

After a bit of experimentation in RoF I began to wonder if the reaction in the simulation

was the same for the various ranges of input as I had observed first hand.

 

In the spinning wheel experiment I found that small inputs of nose up/down

would cause the reaction and it would be roughly proportional, but if I

jerked the spinning wheel with a bit of force the reaction was very strong

and quite a struggle to keep a grip on.

 

Is it possible that yes indeed there is reaction modelled in RoF but that it might not

proportional to the input?

 

To the casual observer certain boxes maybe ticked.

 

But if you push the simulation harder it might not be doing exactly what one would expect.

 

i.e.

With a slow input the Camel will react as expected but with a faster input the Camel reacts less convincingly.

 

For the purists here it is possible that the reaction is not quite as strong enough as they might expect?

 

Just a thought.

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

 

PS. and no one in their right mind would try this out on their real rotary plane, but in RoF we do it daily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Plank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd always thought that the secondary and tertiary outputs resulting from a pitch input were yaw and roll, respectively.

At least partially explaining the need to correct for a pitch up / down maneuver (which with experience one should be able to do automatically).

 

Maybe a different way of explaining the same thing, and probably explained badly at any rate.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://advrider.com/f/threads/bmw-gyroscopic-flywheel-effect.952149/page-3

(Please ignore that some of these chicken dinners write it as "gyroscopic precision,"  English may not be their first language.) 

 

There is a different sort of explanation, dealing with something near and dear to my heart:  BMW airhead motorcycles.  The horizontal 2-cyl engine and flywheel of the BMW motorcycle makes it a gyroscope!  At standstill, leaned over a bit, I can feel increased RPMs in neutral stand the bike up, it's very cool.  I've always thought of this thing as half a Cessna engine (okay a bit smaller than that) strapped to a bike frame.  I bet more people ride bikes than fly IRL, so this may be a useful frame of reference. 

 

Anyway, they have a very good and very simple diagram.  Russian peasant understand.  Substitute the Flywheel for a rotary engine. 

 

 

Gyro_Precession.PNG

 

The DR1 engine rotates opposite of this diagram, so the precession is opposite.   As Chill31 says, a force "UP" produces a precession to the right in the game.  Pitching down produces a yaw left.  I just did this in FC, it is there.  As to the magnitude of the effect:  have you flown one of these?  Have you flown anything for more than 25 hours, period?  Been to ground school?  Taken an aerodynamics course in college?  Are you a computer programmer being paid by a gaming company to study aerodynamics for a simulation?  Anything relating to this experience at all?

 

Nah, I bet you are just a Cynic, and this is one of your "things."  Chill not only has a DR1 without a rotary, he knows a guy with a legit rotary, so listen to him.  They have discussed the difference. 

 

Also, these early planes are aerodynamically different in so many ways, that each will experience the effects differently.  Also the effects are most pronounced at lower speeds (WWI vs WWII handling) and high angles of attack, so talking about FC in terms of IL2 experience is just silly.  

 

Also, are you aware of P-factor and how it would interact with Gyro precession? P-factor (again, something way more apparent at High AoA, so takeoffs and near-stall maneuvers) is the reason that single-rotor helicopters need to vary the pitch of the blades from the backwards to forwards stroke (sorry, I am blanking on the technical term for this right now).  The layman's explanation for an aircraft is that the "downward" side of the propeller "bites" the air more, "pushing" the plane of the rotor in that direction.  In the DR1, the engine and the prop rotate in the same direction.

 

A pitch up produces a precession to the right, increases the AoA of the prop, and at the same time the P-factor of the prop is pushing AGAINST the precession yaw to the right.  Pitch the nose down, and the P-factor works with precession and you get a little bit more yaw. I think I can see this in the game.  It's subtle.  Use an external view and watch the body of the DR1, and the difference is more apparent than if you watch from the cockpit.

 

Again, how strong should these forces be?  Chill31 and friends know way more than you do, unless you happen to fly full-scale WWI aircraft.  If so, please, enlighten us!  If not, please stop trashing a game for stuff you know nothing about.  It will keep people away for demonstrably false reasons.     

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Again, how strong should these forces be?  Chill31 and friends know way more than you do...

 

To be fair, I don't know how much it should be at this point.  I am on track for finding out early to mid January with the 80 Le Rhone.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really a question of strength of effect, although that does matter ultimately.   That guy is saying that the game doesn't model it at all, when it obviously does, and he clearly doesn't understand why or when it should happen (side note, he could just quote me and say, "No I totally do understand." and nothing else, and that is Par for the internet...). 

 

I think that somebody can read about gyroscopic precession and come up with wacky ideas of how that would work in a vacuum, but they ignore all the other factors going on during flight.  Vertical stabilizers existing, variable wing AoA in a turn, the fuselage as an aerodynamic object...that sort of thing.  And all of that is why I love WWI aviation.

Edited by EmerlistDavjack
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day all

 

Bently engine production.

 

Ok lets explode the myth that the AR1 renamed by the Admiralty the BR1 was a late war engine.

The AR1/BR1 commenced production in June of 1917 at Humber and Vickers with the Admiralty ordering a further 5000 engines in early September 1917 (though I'm still trying to find the actual RNAS order number). Now it may be that some confusion exists between the BR1 150hp engine for the Camel and the BR2 230hp engine for the Snipe which commenced production in October 1917.

From September 1917 RNAS only accepted Bentley engine Camels in service. So sorry to burst some bubbles here but RNAS Sqns 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 from September onwards would only have accepted in service as replacement airframes Camels with Bentley engines as per Admiralty orders. Those aircraft in service would have had the engines exchanged for Bentleys at the earliest opportunity at Sqn level or the aircraft would have been sent back to the service depot for upgrade to the BR1 engine. The RNAS appreciated the ease of maintenance of a single engine type and were very strict about service cycles and compulsory maintenance. The Bentley engines in testing sustained 100hrs between overhauls which was a vast improvement on the early Clerget engines and the Bentleys were noted for reliability in combat.

Further on this the Australian Flying Corps (AFC) received some Camels with Bentley engines that were refurbished after damage in combat/excessive wear and tear whilst in RNAS service. These Camels were sent back to the major servicing depots to be refurbished and once completed were given new serial numbers and listed as new builds as the damaged Camel numbers were written off. The first AFC Camel with Bentley engine was accepted into service in November 1917 and this can be proven by following the aircraft serial numbers and service history.

The RFC did have Bentley engine Camels in service though most RFC Camels were Clerget 130hp which had the bf (140hp) long stroke modification kit applied when it became available during service cycle. BR1 engine production was never enough to keep up with demand for RFC airframes but the RNAS had secured production supply for it's Sqns.

 

Camels were reportedly fitted with BR2 engines but I can find no proof that these Camels entered front line service in any Sqn and it is more likely that these were engine test bed airframes not combat aircraft.

 

Humber produced 600 BR1 engines, Vickers 523 and I am yet to find the figures for the other manufacturers. Daimler has been mentioned but as yet I can only find production for the BR2. But additional engine manufacturer possibilities include Crossely, Gwynnes and Ruston and Proctor.

 

Either way it goes in can be proven that Bentley engine Camels were in service on the Western Front from September 1917 in RNAS hands with a trickle down effect to AFC and RFC Sqns by November 1917.

 

Regards Shot   

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Oct 31 1918, the Camels with the BEF

 

186 BR1 out of 356 total

344 Clerget out of 1342 total

272 Le Rhone Mono out of 821 total

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×