Jump to content
Chill31

Knights of the Sky Foundation

Recommended Posts

I agree with both of you, including the slippery slope that led to 1.034. Yes, it was a good thing from a gameplay balance perspective, but historically there is no source that places the Camel at 167km/h as it exists in RoF (and it is completely broken next to the 185km/h Hanriot, which they forgot about). I'm on board with any decision that has the Camel end up anywhere between 182 and 188km/h, as that is exactly where the Belgians placed it. For the record: the Nieuport 23, Hanriot HD.1 and Sopwith Camel were all considered to be 180km/h planes, with absolutely no scientific measurements done at sea level or anywhere else for that matter, but also no patriotic or manufacturer bias.

 

As for the Fokker Dr.I, I also agree with @unreasonable when he states that what we have is correct within 1.8% when we look at certain sources, even though 3km/h TAS at 4000m is significant in my opinion.

 

What we need is what we're least likely to get: full FM reviews for all rotaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

They should adjust it to actual rpm reflecting real propellers. What we have now in rpm/airspeed looks like a relatively arbitrary combination to reach certain performance figures. RoF differs internally from BoX, so it looks logical that rpm/airspeed relations get skewed.

 

I think it is related to flight models limitations. I doubt they created an algorithm that accounts for prop pitch, rpm and atmospheric conditions, then they might have just thrown some numbers and modeled over-rev? The dichotomy in between the ROF Camel at 1220rpm and FC Camel at 1220rpm seems to indicate the numbers are loosely given.

 

This is why I never associate real life data such as prop pitch, rpm, gyroscopic forcers and such to the game. We certainly fly in a world with its own forces at play.

 

Just now, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

As for the Fokker Dr.I, I also agree with @unreasonable when he states that what we have is correct within 1.8% when we look at certain sources, even though 3km/h TAS at 4000m is significant in my opinion.

 

I disagree. Those data were always doubted as either typo or wrong methodology. At the Aerodrome, the last word was always about an +-180km/h Fokker Dr1.

 

Chill's data with a smaller prop basically matches a Dr1 with an 80hp engine (at 1250rpm). I would wait for his last word, but the 165km/h Dr1 seems to be nerfed (as was the intention in 2014).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I think it is related to flight models limitations.

It should be the base on any sim engine. To me it looks more like lack of information and sheer convenience: throwing in RoF parameters, then fudging a bit on those to match speeds stated in documents at hand.

 

We have to buy a lot of FC copies to get what we want. In principle, I see no problems at all to get things very, very close to real numbers, especially when you have people like Chill near. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

especially when you have people like Chill near. 

 

I hope so.

Share this post


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

I am assuming one thing: when the developers give maximum speeds they are using the game's level autopilot to generate them.

I think I read that they have special tools that we don't have access to for measuring top speed and I tend to think this is the case because with the SPAD XIII in auto-level I can only get 215kph out of 219kph on the deck on the Kuban Autumn QMB map (standard atmosphere).  Which doesn't make sense as these planes in real life had their performance measured with real humans behind the stick.  Also have read that the in game Dr1 can't reach its stated sea-level top speed with auto-level.

Edited by US93_Furlow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, US93_Furlow said:

I think I read that they have special tools that we don't have access to for measuring top speed and I tend to think this is the case because with the SPAD XIII in auto-level I can only get 215kph out of 219kph on the deck on the Kuban Autumn QMB map (standard atmosphere).  Which doesn't make sense as these planes in real life had their performance measured with real humans behind the stick.  Also have read that the in game Dr1 can't reach its stated sea-level top speed with auto-level.

 

I'll test the Spad with ground markers here, because then, whatever speed she has, it is the real speed, not what is stated on the specs or what is shown to us on the HUD. You can't cheat travelled distance vs time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Furlow said:

I think I read that they have special tools that we don't have access to for measuring top speed and I tend to think this is the case because with the SPAD XIII in auto-level I can only get 215kph out of 219kph on the deck on the Kuban Autumn QMB map (standard atmosphere).  Which doesn't make sense as these planes in real life had their performance measured with real humans behind the stick.  Also have read that the in game Dr1 can't reach its stated sea-level top speed with auto-level.

 

The top speed is 214-215km/h. The 219km/h is the old value before the propeller fix in which all planes lost 5km/h. All measurements need to be done again, except for the SE5a, Albatros D.Va and the two-seaters, which were released after the fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

The top speed is 214-215km/h. The 219km/h is the old value before the propeller fix in which all planes lost 5km/h. All measurements need to be done again, except for the SE5a, Albatros D.Va and the two-seaters, which were released after the fix.

 

You have to check, because they do have this argument that their in-house numbers are more precise than what we have in-game, and we had some planes here that did not matched what they were saying. I'll test just to make sure. The mission is ready. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

You have to check, because they do have this argument that their in-house numbers are more precise than what we have in-game, and we had some planes here that did not matched what they were saying. I'll test just to make sure. The mission is ready. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have the result.

 

I can assure you, the measurements have not been updated since the propeller fix, even though it needed to happen after the 3.101 update back in June.

 

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a couple of planes before this fix that we could not match the speed in-game, hence why they said that the in-house numbers were more precise. I'm not sure if the Spad was one of them. Anyways, it got me curious. If I have time today, I'll do a run.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

There were a couple of planes before this fix that we could not match the speed in-game, hence why they said that the in-house numbers were more precise. I'm not sure if the Spad was one of them. Anyways, it got me curious. If I have time today, I'll do a run.

Pretty sure it has always been about 215kph even back in RoF.  Where the SPAD VII 180hp was slightly faster at 219kph.

Edited by US93_Furlow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I think it is related to flight models limitations. I doubt they created an algorithm that accounts for prop pitch, rpm and atmospheric conditions, then they might have just thrown some numbers and modeled over-rev? The dichotomy in between the ROF Camel at 1220rpm and FC Camel at 1220rpm seems to indicate the numbers are loosely given.

 

This is why I never associate real life data such as prop pitch, rpm, gyroscopic forcers and such to the game. We certainly fly in a world with its own forces at play.

 

You should.  The BoX engine has to deal with planes that have variable pitch props, a range of rpm and maps ranging from hot summer to below freezing.  

 

Plane speeds vary in the game with each of these factors (and others). By far the easiest way to model these is by using the formulae that engineers use to actually describe the forces, albeit sometimes in simplified forms or using the occasional fudge factor. Making up your own forces would be futile and inaccurate. We do not get fully accurate matches to real results, leaving aside the whole difficult area of measurement error,  simply because no set of formulae is a full description of a real aircraft in a real atmosphere.

 

When you can show the developers that some forces in the game are demonstrably wrong, or at least highly implausible, using reliable real life data, (eg Tempest CLmax, pressurization of Spitfire cooling system to give to recent examples)  they get changed.  At least they do in BoX which is still, apparently, a going concern commercially.

 

As for whether Chill's results will affect FC - we will see. But they are a fascinating exercise to observe either way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

As for the Fokker Dr.I, I also agree with @unreasonable when he states that what we have is correct within 1.8% when we look at certain sources, even though 3km/h TAS at 4000m is significant in my opinion.

 

What we need is what we're least likely to get: full FM reviews for all rotaries.

 

I have a feeling the Dr1 will get some consideration.  It goes a long way to have a benchmark from which all your calculations can be validated.  That is my goal: provide a benchmark.

 

i do not believe 103 mph for the Dr.1 max speed is accurate.  I can almost achieve that on 80 hp.

 

speed increase is proportional to power increase cubed. So if I add 50% power, I should increase speed by 14%. For my Dr.1, that would mean going from 98 mph to 112 mph.  Considering some sources cite max speed at 110 mph, I have a feeling my test data will prove that to be the case.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I have a feeling the Dr1 will get some consideration.  It goes a long way to have a benchmark from which all your calculations can be validated.  That is my goal: provide a benchmark.

 

i do not believe 103 mph for the Dr.1 max speed is accurate.  I can almost achieve that on 80 hp.

 

speed increase is proportional to power increase cubed. So if I add 50% power, I should increase speed by 14%. For my Dr.1, that would mean going from 98 mph to 112 mph.  Considering some sources cite max speed at 110 mph, I have a feeling my test data will prove that to be the case.

I also think that if ever FC is moving forward, planes in general will get some attention.

 

So far, it is obvious that at the time FC emerged, there is hardly anyone among the devs with deeper knowledge of WWI birds.

 

Just patching together performance curves from individual data points here and there will naturally lead to awkward configurations. I think the first thing that is needed is getting a better understanding of airframe drag and prop efficiencies. If you have that, you have test cases to match your aircraft performance figures. Alike aircraft should perform accordingly and with this, you can even test your literature data. The Dr.I proves that it is a very nice aircraft indeed, as it rather closely meets predictions.

 

Of interest here, what were the performance figures with the Lycoming? Were you using the 60 inch pitch prop? What flight speed did you get at say 2400 rpm?

 

I‘m asking this because I‘d expect smaller, faster spinning (you had 80 inch diameter?) propellers to be less efficient, mostly due to cowing design. But I‘d like to see that figure to get an idea of what to expect with the SPAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, US93_Furlow said:

Pretty sure it has always been about 215kph even back in RoF.  Where the SPAD VII 180hp was slightly faster at 219kph.

 

I did two runs of 70km in lenght and the Spad 13 was flying at 215.3km/h on average. One run at 215.2 (with normal time constraint) and the other at 215.4 (time 2X). I did the runs with mixture at 88%. The variation could be due to the 2X or mixture, since I tap two or three times on the keyboard to jump from 87 to 88%.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR: Our FC SPAD is almost spot on in flight speed, maybe up to 5 km/h on the slow side.

 

I think our FC SPAD is a bit of a bastard though. But probably most SPADs at the time were. The configuration with a low compression 8Ba engine should be a 200 hp 1917 variant. All low compressio (4.7 : 1) were upgraded to high compression engines (5.3 : 1) before the war.

 

What little info I have on these engines is consistent with this:

 

The 200hp HS 8Ba, 8Bb, 8Bd were used on the 1917 built SPAD XIIIc1 machines. I think they may have been those with the rounded wing tips.

HS 8Cb and 8Cd were 200 hp with 24:41 gearing 

HS 8Cc and 8Ce were 220 hp with 24:41 gearing

HS 8Db and 8Dd were 200 hp with 26:39 gearing

HS 8Dc and 8De were 220 hp with 26:39 gearing

HS 8Eb and 8Ed were 200 hp with 21:28 gearing

HS 8Ec and 8Ee were 220 hp with 21:28 gearing

 

The 200hp HS 8Ca, 8Cb and the 220hp 8Ce were the cannon mounted Hisso engines used on the SPAD XIIc1. These engines had 21:41 gearing.

 

On the 200 hp engines the compression ratio was 4.7:1

On the 220 hp engines the compression ratio was 5.3:1

(See here)

 

This means the 220 hp does not need to rev higher than the 200 hp engine to produce 10% more power. The added torque can do that.

 

As fas as propellers go, they commonly used a variety of 2.5 meter diameter ones with different pitch, varying between 2.3 meters to 2.5 meters. Props with differing in blade width (20 cm vs 21 cm).

(See here)

 

But there seems to have been a 2.15 meter pitch propeller for the „220 hp“ Hisso as well. The different gearings clearly reflect that as well.

(See here)

 

As it is stated in the description, our SPAD XIIIc1 should be a 200 hp plane if it indeed featured a HS 8 Ba engine. Even Wiki got that right. Then again, nomenclature is not too explicit, we can also assume that we have a „late Ba“ engine that became the „Bb“, we would have 220 hp at 2‘300 rpm with a reduction gear of 3:2. For sake of the argument, let‘s take it as that one.

Taken from here)

 

With a 2.5 m pitch prop and real world prop efficiency (~95%) it would go 219 km/h TAS.

 

Wiki specifies for instance the 200 hp SPAD XIII going 211 km/h. Upping power by 10% would give us then (power needed rises to the cube per airspeed) 218 km/h, spot for the commonly used 2.5 meter pitch props.

 

Our SPAD XIII supposedly (as @SeaW0lf tested) does 215.4 km/h, which is very near the prediction. What is not plausible is that any 180 hp SPAD does 219 km/h as @US93_Furlow mentioned. At 180 hp it would do 206 km/h at best. With the prop/gearing combination of the 220 hp Hisso, it would even do less, about 200 km/h. Whatever source that is from, it is certainly a wrong figure that can only be attributed to a 220 hp SPAD.

 

In all of this, we didn‘t have to factor in weight, as the SPAD is a light aircraft that packs a lot more power than the Dr.I to offset the weight penalty. That weight can become an issue, that we see in the Albatros and the Pfalz, both heavy, underpowered aircraft, especially the latter.

 

There are several ways to sanity check sources. But the by far the easiest one is looking at the propeller and rpm used. A fixed pitch propeller decides the „gear“ that your aircraft „flies in“. In order to make the aircraft fly safely, it is a paramout requirement to select a propeller that can operate efficiently under the conditions used. Not accepting this is implying that the designers were stupid and the aircraft may well be a bad one, unnecessarily slow and with a bad mileage. Chills aircraft so far proves that designers back then were perfecty aware of what they were doing.

 

Also with altitude, the drop in airspeed is not only due to power drop as the engine runs out of air. The propeller, a wing as any other, becomes too small to maintain its bite and prop efficiency drops (in a known way!). This can (and is) offset to some degree by increasing rpm with altitude. In the Cessna you can up the rpm from 2400 to 2600. It should be obvious what this does to your mileage however. Compression ratio of the engines doesn‘t really matter here when comparing planes. The Hisso ran at 4.7 or 5.3 to 1, and so does the Clerget. A regular Lycoming runs at 8.7 : 1 for comparison.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

According to the book: Hispano Suiza in Aeronautics the 8Ab 180hp engine used in the SPAD VII would produce 207hp at 1,800rpm (180hp @ 1540rpm).  Not sure if that would change any predictions given that the VII is both lighter and smaller than the XIII.  Aircam Aviation Series Number 9 gives 132mph at 6500ft for SPAD VII with 8Ab engine.  In comparison a 200hp 8Ba produced only 8hp more at full throttle (2100rpm).

Edited by US93_Furlow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Then again, nomenclature is not too explicit, we can also assume that we have a „late Ba“ engine that became the „Bb“, we would have 220 hp at 2‘300 rpm with a reduction gear of 3:2. For sake of the argument, let‘s take it as that one.

1000m altitude level speed wise that might be the case, but when looking at the converted auto level TAS at 2000m and 3000m its nearly a perfect match with 200hp  speed data that wikipedia and my source provides.  Not sure we could say that we have a late 8Ba engine based on how it operates in game as ours only has a max of 2100rpm, which is listed as the max rpm in a standard 4.7 compression ratio 200hp engine at which the 200hp engine was producing 215hp.  At 2300rpm in a dive the engine will likely blow quickly in game unless engine temps are kept high.  I think that calling an 8Ba engine a 220hp engine is an error that keeps on being passed from one author to another.   In regards to that all aero website It does not match up with the RPM/power outputs listed in the book I previously mentioned.

 

Side note: Sept. 1917 SPAD XIII S.512 with a 8Bec 220hp engine was tested with 3 different props (Ratmanoff 6727, Chauviere 2223, Levasseur 586) the respective speeds at 2000m were 218kph(12th September), 213kph (6th September), and 217kph time to climb to that altitude was 4m40s, 5m10s, and 4m40s (same order).  Source: Air International June 1976 article by J. M. Bruce.  

 

Edited by US93_Furlow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, US93_Furlow said:

Not sure we could say that we have a late 8Ba engine based on how it operates in game as ours only has a max of 2100rpm,

It is indeed inconsistent in the specs. I took an arbitrary guess but what came out indeed also pointed more to your assumption.

I do agree that our SPAD is a good fit to the wiki-SPAD and taking it in as such makes sense. But we certainly would need to correct some labels.

 

I think it is really up to us to provide accurate documentation for the devs. I can‘t imagine that currently they would afford anyone digging deep in the literature to get all these details right. But I see no reason that they wouldn‘t set things right once the information required is at hands. It makes @Chill31‘s initiative so important. We absolutely need some trusted reference for these aircraft.

 

6 hours ago, US93_Furlow said:

At 2300rpm in a dive the engine will likely blow quickly in game unless engine temps are kept high

You should definitely close cooler shutters before a dive. At full power however, I‘d expect the engine to be safe from any drastic overcooling. Inline engines are are very resistant to this form of excessive cooling, in contrast to air cooled ones. Also revving them such I‘d expect not to be a problem, especially with those weak, low revving inline engines. If you windmill them past specified rpm, what happens is that valve timings etc. become awkward and the engine loses power, hence actual load on the internals gets reduced. This in contrast to rotaries, where centrifugal forces bring lots of hurt on your engine.

 

Share this post


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

 

I think it is really up to us to provide accurate documentation for the devs. I can‘t imagine that currently they would afford anyone digging deep in the literature to get all these details right. But I see no reason that they wouldn‘t set things right once the information required is at hands. It makes @Chill31‘s initiative so important. We absolutely need some trusted reference for these aircraft.

 

 

SPAD documentation coming very shortly. Whether they do anything with it is another point.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 2:55 AM, ZachariasX said:

 

Of interest here, what were the performance figures with the Lycoming? Were you using the 60 inch pitch prop? What flight speed did you get at say 2400 rpm?

 

I‘m asking this because I‘d expect smaller, faster spinning (you had 80 inch diameter?) propellers to be less efficient, mostly due to cowing design. But I‘d like to see that figure to get an idea of what to expect with the SPAD.

I had an 80x46 inch propeller turning 2400 rpm (if I remember correctly) with the lycoming. The Dr.I speed was 107 mph. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I had an 80x46 inch propeller turning 2400 rpm (if I remember correctly) with the lycoming. The Dr.I speed was 107 mph. 

At 2500 rpm you‘d do in theory 108 mph. IIRC, you‘re actually perfectly matching a Bü-131 with a similar engine/prop combination. The engine is the same on the one I‘ve flown with, that I know for sure. I will check the prop plate next time I‘m at the airfield to be certain.

 

But as for now, It seems that drag in these WWI aircraft is not a determinant to partition them in terms of top speed. Wing loading can be an issue, especially at altitude that can cancel out the modest speed gains by upping power 10% for cranking a constant speed prop in basically underpowered conditions. As it happened in the Albatri. But the Albatri and the Pfalz are very heavy aircraft in relation to their engine power.

 

As for the rest, a simple approximations by power requirements for added flight speed also yield plausible airspeeds:

 

Taking the 200 hp wiki-SPAD going at 215 km/h would make your Dr.I go 181 km/h (112,4 mph) at 120 hp and only at 80 hp, the prediction starts to drop off, 158 km/h (98 mph). This is expected as your Dr.I weights up to 1/3rd less than the reference SPAD.

 

In short, it is very certain that those aircraft had a speed closely corresponding to their power output and in this sense were efficient aircraft in their speed bracket. We can also see that todays propellers give you a tad better mileage than the ones from back then. We are by no means in a situation where „we cannot know“.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Chris, 

 

Airframe prices for replica kits are clearly published at the Aerodrome website; not so rotary engines, though.

 

QUESTION: If I wanted to buy a rotary engine like the one you recently mounted on your Dr.1; who is the supplier, how long is the waiting list, and approximately what do they cost the customer?

 

Thanks.

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Chris, 

 

Airframe prices for replica kits are clearly published at the Aerodrome website; not so rotary engines, though.

 

QUESTION: If I wanted to buy a rotary engine like the one you recently mounted on your Dr.1; who is the supplier, how long is the waiting list, and approximately what do they cost the customer?

 

Thanks.

There is no supplier per se.  Every once in a while, you will see one pop up for sale.  The price is obviously heavily dependent upon condition. A running 80 Le Rhone that is ready for mounting on an airplane will run about 30-45k depending on your timing and the seller's goals. An incomplete 120 le Rhone went for 30k not long ago. That engine needed 20k worth of parts before anyone even put time into the overhaul...

 

Thinking of getting a WWI bird going??

Share this post


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

There is no supplier per se.  Every once in a while, you will see one pop up for sale.  The price is obviously heavily dependent upon condition. A running 80 Le Rhone that is ready for mounting on an airplane will run about 30-45k depending on your timing and the seller's goals. An incomplete 120 le Rhone went for 30k not long ago. That engine needed 20k worth of parts before anyone even put time into the overhaul...

 

Thinking of getting a WWI bird going??

 

Thanks for the info.  That's what i needed to know.  

 

I thought I'd seen a Kermie-Cam video a while back where someone (Gene DeMarco?) was talking about a manufacturer of new repro rotaries; might be wrong about that, though.  I'll look into it and let you know if I find anything out.

 

Projects:  Among other things, I've been a mechanical fabricator and design technologist all my adult life; everything from submersibles to airplanes.  My wife just retired 10-years early and this is a time of new beginnings for us.  Presently, I have four mechanical projects we want to finish in two years.  After that I'd be looking for a new project and a WW1 warbird is something I would really love to own but haven't gotten around to building yet.

 

Actually, I could start buying and building the individual airframe kits while I'm finishing those other projects; that'd get a leg-up on the work and spread the cost around.  The Aerodrome kits are reasonably priced, I think.  Kit one is the rudder.  Like to do one of those for the wall if nothing else.

 

My friend Dave Gillespie in Canada has a Camel replica with a radial and tailwheel (asphalt bird).  I'd like to either build a Dr.1 or a Camel but I'd probably have to go with a Volkswagen or the like at first.  But once I am underway building the airframe, a rotary would be a wise purchase.

 

$40K is a lot of money everywhere except in aviation; and if it makes the overall project more valuable then I think it's worth it. 

 

So yeah, I would LOVE to build a WW1 warbird and actually think I could make it happen in the next five years.  What I like most about the Aerodrome planes is the frames are tube and rivet construction, and after that it's mostly fabric; doesn't have much Alclad to be riveted on.  That means a lot less holes and rivets.  Easier build.   

 

Thanks for the info and inspiration.  I'll be watching your progress for pointers and will probably become an information-seeking nuisance someday.  Sorry.

 

Prosit!  :-)  

DR1 FRAME.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

I thought I'd seen a Kermie-Cam video a while back where someone (Gene DeMarco?) was talking about a manufacturer of new repro rotaries; might be wrong about that, though.  I'll look into it and let you know if I find anything out.

 

There's  company called TVAL out of New Zealand. That's what was being talked about by Gene and Kermit. They make an Oberusal URII 120hp (110) as well as others.

 

 

Edited by Adam
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks Adam.  Yep, that's the one!  

 

My wife just retired and she knows I have wanted to see the NZ fleet for a long time so we're planning a trip to New Zealand and it's good to know that's where the engines are built.  We can cover a lot of bases in one trip.  I'll check the prices and share what I learn.

 

(Vancouver, eh?  My wife's from Regina-Saskatchewan and had an Aunt on Vancouver Island.  Small world.)

 

Thanks for the vector.

 

ADDIT: found this.  Don't see a price sheet but I'm not surprised.  Worth a phone call Monday morning.  Lots of cool stuff at their website.  Check it out.

 

https://aerodynamicmedia.com/tval-aircraft-and-engines-for-sale/

 

ADDIT 2: Did some research.  Too early to call now but I'm pretty sure those limited edition repro engines are gonna be extremely expensive; bracing for the shock.

 

They also have some planes for sale.  My understanding is they are authentic recreations done in wood, fabric, and other original materials; i.e., "museum quality."  That's also way outta my ballpark.

 

But they have a Snipe for sale.  How cool is that?  I remember that one from RB3 as superior to the Camel.  It would really be nice to have a Snipe in FC1, just to see how much better it flies.  But I don't know what they would balance that addition with on the German side.  

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a place called Cam S in New Zealand , and you can buy new build gnome At $65000. T Val will sell you a rhone or a clerget for about $180000. 

 

  Those are all new production engines. Not original

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

There is a place called Cam S in New Zealand , and you can buy new build gnome At $65000. T Val will sell you a rhone or a clerget for about $180000. 

 

  Those are all new production engines. Not original

 

Thanks Chris.  Saves me a phone call.  Now we know the numbers.

 

It all hinges on what the project will be worth when it's complete.  I don't need museum quality and actually prefer the Aerodrome kits because they look easier to build and  stronger once assembled.

 

The DeLuxe airframe kit for an Aerodrome Fokker Dr.1 is $11.5K USD.  

 

Let's say we buy a new CamS Gnome for $65K and we get into the air for a total parts and materials investment of, say, $85K; labor NOT included because we build it ourselves as a labor of love.  (Heh!)  

 

Could you get more than that for it?  Sure. Three times that, easily; probably more.  It's worth more than the sum of the parts.  And when you're selling unobtanium: you can set your own price.  

 

Some buyers might actually prefer a Revmaster but if I build one of these I think it needs a rotary.  (Okay, it's mostly because I want to fly one.)

 

Finding a good used rotary might save $30K but even if we had to commit to an initial layout in the area of $80K for the engine and airframe components, it would still be economically feasible by a wide margin.

 

I'm liking the idea more all the time.  Thanks for your insight.

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


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

It all hinges on what the project will be worth when it's complete.  I don't need museum quality and actually prefer the Aerodrome kits because they look easier to build and  stronger once assembled.

 

The DeLuxe airframe kit for an Aerodrome Fokker Dr.1 is $11.5K USD.  

 

Let's say we buy a new CamS Gnome for $65K and we get into the air for a total parts and materials investment of, say, $85K; labor NOT included because we build it ourselves as a labor of love.  (Heh!)  

 

Could you get more than that for it?  Sure. Three times that, easily; probably more.  It's worth more than the sum of the parts.  And when you're selling unobtanium: you can set your own price.  

 

Airdrome Airplanes are not very accurate to the original WWI aircraft.  They simply look like them.  People who are willing to pay a premium for a WWI aircraft won't by an AA with a rotary for more than 80k.  I  don't think I would pursue an AA replica as an investment or as an accurate WWI flying experience. A fun flying experience? most definitely!

Share this post


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

 

Airdrome Airplanes are not very accurate to the original WWI aircraft.  They simply look like them.  People who are willing to pay a premium for a WWI aircraft won't by an AA with a rotary for more than 80k.  I  don't think I would pursue an AA replica as an investment or as an accurate WWI flying experience. A fun flying experience? most definitely!

 

All valid points and i defer to your experience.  I thought most all the replicas out there (yours included) were AA.  My mistake.  But this is how I learn.

 

And you're right again.  I've built some expensive projects in my life and not one of them was done for profit.  I guess I'm just accustomed to validating it monetarily because many people assign all value to dollars and cents.  I'm not like that, though.  I've built the machines I have for the sheer joy of building, owning, and operating them. Only sold two original creations in my whole life and sometimes i wish I had those back.  

 

If rotary-powered AA replicas can be had for under $80K, that sounds good to me.  Finding one for sale is awfully hard, though.  

 

Thanks for the information; it helps a lot.  I'm gonna keep looking to see what's available.  If you hear about any friends looking to sell a WW1 bird, please sound off.  I'd be interested to learn of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew the Dr.I today and started aerobatic/aggressive maneuvers.  Turning right is a lot easier than turning left!  I have to edit the GoPro video for it to be worth watching, and I need to have a rear mounted camera so you can see the rudder and elevator move.  

 

A solid push on the right rudder, a little aileron, and full aft stick. BAM! Effortless 180 degree turn.

 

To the left, it turns ok, but as soon as you pull on the stick, the nose starts to swing right, counteracting the rudder aiding the turn.  Rolling out seemed to take for ever, a great place to end up getting shot down.  

 

Anyway, hopefully i'll have the video up tomorrow. Super excited about today's flight!

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

A solid push on the right rudder, a little aileron, and full aft stick. BAM! Effortless 180 degree turn.

The Camel should do likewise then? Would be nice to compare how the planes react to these inputs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2019 at 10:46 PM, Chill31 said:

I have a feeling the Dr1 will get some consideration.  It goes a long way to have a benchmark from which all your calculations can be validated.  That is my goal: provide a benchmark.

 

So...I was wrong :(  One of my goals in flying a Fokker Dr.I with a rotary engine was to provide data so the FM could be made perfect in ROF/FC.  I don't think that is going to happen though...

 

At least the FC Dr.I handles better than the ROF Dr.I, much more like the real plane.  The speed, I fear is slow by 10 mph.  I should have the 120 Rhone running by September.  I've resumed the engine overhaul today!

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also doubt that the devs would touch any FC crates unless they came up with FC2. Still, I think it is important to FINALLY have reliable numbers on that aircraft. For 100 years, we have people quoting themselves in circles or info that gets lost in translation. Also, having those numbers right gives a tool to make viable predictions on other aircraft.

 

I'm really looking forward for you giving the 120 Rhone a spin!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why not. Petrovich adjusted / nerfed the Pfalz (apparently rolled back) in one week or so if I’m not mistaken, just because of a comment in a thread (which might have led to the D.Va being rolled back as well). It seems to be simpler than we think.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

I'm not sure why not. Petrovich adjusted / nerfed the Pfalz (apparently rolled back) in one week or so if I’m not mistaken, just because of a comment in a thread (which might have led to the D.Va being rolled back as well). It seems to be simpler than we think.

I think the devs are just burned by tweaking FM according to the likes of some forists. 🙄 (Ok, ok, I'm sorry. But I still like that patch *there*.) I can understand that. Also, what we have now corresponds to a flight test IIRC done in 1920 in the USA with several of those aircraft. What we have there has some reason behind it.

 

If we were to make the Dr.I different, then I think it would be best done by adding engine variants, sold along with new aircrafts. You can make the Oberursel 110, the Rhone 120 and the 130 Clerget Dr.I's. "Prize engines". You can then take the exact figures that @Chill31 is getting from his plane.

 

All you basically need are the propeller efficiencies and the rpm, and then you have rather exact figures. But the prop efficiency vs rpm vs airspieed vs altitude is something we should know first. In a Cessna, you find these even in the manual. If you have that for a given engine combination, you can predict the airspeed etc in a very, very exact manner, way more exact than any of the planes in BoX are doing as of now.

 

Chills Dr.I is way more than just information on the Dr.I. It will tell us about any engine he's sticking on that aircraft. Engines that are used on the Camel, the Nieuports etc.. The fact that speed prediction with fixed pitch propellers is way more simple than with constant speed ones helps us here a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I think the devs are just burned by tweaking FM according to the likes of some forists. 🙄 (Ok, ok, I'm sorry. But I still like that patch *there*.) I can understand that. Also, what we have now corresponds to a flight test IIRC done in 1920 in the USA with several of those aircraft. What we have there has some reason behind it.

 

If we were to make the Dr.I different, then I think it would be best done by adding engine variants, sold along with new aircrafts. You can make the Oberursel 110, the Rhone 120 and the 130 Clerget Dr.I's. "Prize engines". You can then take the exact figures that @Chill31 is getting from his plane.

 

All you basically need are the propeller efficiencies and the rpm, and then you have rather exact figures. But the prop efficiency vs rpm vs airspieed vs altitude is something we should know first. In a Cessna, you find these even in the manual. If you have that for a given engine combination, you can predict the airspeed etc in a very, very exact manner, way more exact than any of the planes in BoX are doing as of now.

 

Chills Dr.I is way more than just information on the Dr.I. It will tell us about any engine he's sticking on that aircraft. Engines that are used on the Camel, the Nieuports etc.. The fact that speed prediction with fixed pitch propellers is way more simple than with constant speed ones helps us here a lot.

 

I think you don't understand the context.

 

Chill is a player who also owns a real life Fokker Dr1 with an original Le Rhône 80hp engine, who is saying what he's saying (we don't need to repeat), and what he says matches the speed of the original ROF Fokker Dr1 (the one that we got here in Flying Circus is nerfed). We are not talking about forists asking for anything.

 

Didn't Petrovich tell us that all the Flying Circus planes were rolled back to pre 2014 patch? For some reason they forgot about the Fokker Dr1. So he was not correct in his statement and we never heard anything back from him, and I think Bender reminded him of that a while ago.

 

It is not fair to compare it to the nerfing movement that was going on back in the days. We were excited to hear about Chill news because he has Le Rhônes and was willing to help.

 

That was that. No muss, no fuss.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


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

 

So...I was wrong :(  One of my goals in flying a Fokker Dr.I with a rotary engine was to provide data so the FM could be made perfect in ROF/FC.  I don't think that is going to happen though...

 

At least the FC Dr.I handles better than the ROF Dr.I, much more like the real plane.  The speed, I fear is slow by 10 mph.  I should have the 120 Rhone running by September.  I've resumed the engine overhaul today!

 

@AnPetrovich maybe you will find some time to take advantage of the only such opportunity to work with a Dr.1, after all you had such plans ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Didn't Petrovich tell us that all the Flying Circus planes were rolled back to pre 2014 patch?

They said that, indeed. But it is not known to me how much hard data they had on the Dr.I and that test gave them a lot.

 

It is my speculation, nothing else, that makes me think the availability of the flight test I mentioned is why they didn‘t roll back the Dr.I to pre patch speeds but much rather adjust it to those values instead.

 

As of now, it is also my understanding that the devs have nobody with deeper insights in WW1 aviation. This I take also as a good reason to shy away from changes.

 

But should FC continue to mature, there is no reason that planes can‘t be revised when both hard data comes at hand and we can sanity check existing old sources.

 

It is pointless passing around performance numbers of those aircraft, not knowing rpm or propeller type used. The least of all sources contain that kind of info. Chills aircraft tells us how fast it will go. The pre patch values is just a faster Dr.I, but it‘s still not a correct Dr.I. Just less wrong in one metric under certain assumptions. They should state engine and propeller used in the planes description. „Our“ Dr.I should then match that one, not an arbitrary faster one. The one we have is as slow as the one tested back then. Bummer. Chills is faster. But you can argue it is by all means a different aircraft than the one tested back then.

 

As for me, I‘d love to see such revisions. The Dolphin should be a tad faster as well. It should be at least as fast as the SE5a. It has AFAIK the same engine/propeller and weights the same. But as for now, things are on a halt until Jason can convince people that matter to go ahead with FC2. I want that to happen.

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...