Jump to content
Chill31

Knights of the Sky Foundation

Recommended Posts

The silence on the theme of the development of the circus was so long that it in itself was the answer. ¬†Although it would be nice to return to those times when Dr1 lost its wing during a dive ūüôā

Share this post


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

that makes me think the availability of the¬†flight test¬†I mentioned is¬†why they didn‚Äėt roll back the Dr.I to pre patch speeds but much rather adjust it to those values instead.

 

They did not adjust the Dr1 to a given test. Let me explain because you seem to be lost on the subject.

 

A) When they first ported the ROF planes to Flying Circus, for some reason they gained about 2% in speed in the new engine.

B) Petrovich heard about it, said it was some FM discrepancy and said that they would fix this and match the speeds of ROF.

 

That's all. There was no tweaking to match any test. The FC planes now match the ROF's speeds (the ones rolled back, to the previous speed). The Fokker Dr1 in Flying Circus has the same 165km/h speed of the nerfed Dr1 in ROF.

 

The only problem with the DR1 FM is that it does not lose altitude performance like other rotaries, so they could tweak that, or else, if they can't tweak it, find a happy medium in speed, but the way it is, takes forever to catch up with an HP for example. Too slow and it sounds as it is, a Dr1 powered by an 80hp engine.

 

Honestly, I'm adapted to a Dr1 with an 80hp engine in Flying Circus, but it would be cool to have it fixed together with the altitude performance, since we are supposedly flying in a simulator.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I will probably have a chance to fly a 80 rhone pup this summer. So hopefully get a good data capture from that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

A) When they first ported the ROF planes to Flying Circus, for some reason they gained about 2% in speed in the new engine.

B) Petrovich heard about it, said it was some FM discrepancy and said that they would fix this and match the speeds of ROF.

I didn‚Äėt know that, thnx.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 4:50 PM, 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!

 

This is pretty big news.

 

Thank you for all that you've done and are still going to do in terms of gathering empirical data. If someone ever decides to make a WWI flightsim based on such data rather than on historical reports which sometimes have questionable figures (180km/h Pup, anyone?), it will be invaluable information.

 

For now, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I'm sad but not surprised that we'll be stuck with this nerfed Fokker Dr.I. On the other hand I'm glad that the devs are sticking to their guns, all the while admitting that they simply don't possess the know-how to make the correct decision. There is no shame in humility, in that regard.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what the actual reasoning was not to go back to pre-1.034 on the Fokker Dr.I, but it does match the 165km/h top TAS in German Aircraft of the First World War. As to why it was so slow compared to tests performed today: we can always pull the Voltol card, or the fact that its speed now closely matches the 110hp Nieuport 17, which is also a tad slower than the 80hp Nieuport 11, but climbs far better.

 

For the record: the Bristol Fighter, whose climb and roll rate was reduced for 1.034, was also not rolled back, so the Dr.I is not entirely alone.

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/

 

Or maybe that was an actual oversight, I guess we'll never know for sure.¬†ūüėČ

 

 

Beyond history, the gameplay impact is significant as well. We now have a Dr.I that no one can claim is "better" than the vanilla Fokker D.VII (which no one did back in 1918 either), even if it is the best turnfighter in FC. We now also have a pretty consistent picture where almost all Central planes perform worse than their Entente counterparts (the exceptions being the Sopwith Dolphin and Fokker D.VIIF), but have access to parachutes. This creates a good basis for assymetric warfare missions and having the action take place over Central lines. Combined with the fact that we don't have a Central recon two-seater such as the DFW or heavy bomber such as the Gotha, this is not such a bad thing for the immediate future.

 

 

P.S. I still expect the devs to come through with updated speed measurements for all planes released before the Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a, which were impacted by the prop speed fix.

Edited by J5_Hellbender-Sch27b
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nieuport 17 with 90 hp Tullin rotary engine will be flying in Switzerland soon! The Tullin is a 90 hp copy of the 80 Rhone. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What fuel is used for these engines?  LL100 and castor oil?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coleman White Camping Gas and olive oil. Joking of course. 
 

Pretty sure 100LL and castor oil is correct. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

A nieuport 17 with 90 hp Tullin rotary engine will be flying in Switzerland soon! The Tullin is a 90 hp copy of the 80 Rhone. 

Nieuport-Rohbau_bearbeitet-2.jpg

 

From here:

https://www.nieuport.ch/   (In German..)

 

EDIT: Anyone up for patching together a rotary?

Spoiler

Motor1.jpg

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 7:28 AM, emely said:

What fuel is used for these engines?  LL100 and castor oil?

He original engines used about 60 octane fuel.  I've found guys usa variety of fuels today: 100LL, 93 UL auto fuel, 87 auto 10% ethanol fuel.  So far, I have only used 93 UL auto fuel.  I will try the 87 though. 

 

On 1/20/2020 at 10:47 AM, ZachariasX said:

Nieuport-Rohbau_bearbeitet-2.jpg

 

From here:

https://www.nieuport.ch/   (In German..)

 

EDIT: Anyone up for patching together a rotary?

  Hide contents

Motor1.jpg

 

Nice find! I am putting together 3 engines this year and next year if anyone wants to get some hands on with one. 120 Le Rhone, 130 Clerget, 80 Le Rhone.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Nice find! I am putting together 3 engines this year and next year if anyone wants to get some hands on with one. 120 Le Rhone, 130 Clerget, 80 Le Rhone.

 

It is a project that I was following for some time. Now I‚Äėm looking forward seeing it flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, 

 

First of all, Great planes!  Wow!

 

Second, I'm refining the sim pod design and now it will include pitch mobility.  Thanks again for the plans.  Fake Spandaus are easy to make out of a 2 X 6 and a piece of ABS pipe.  And you can bet my cowling (the end of a big waterpump pressure tank) will have Werner's Kite face, too.  

 

Thirdly, (and to the point) I'm studying the FC1 pilot blackout model and have some questions for you.  

 

1. Do you know (or know where I can find the design specs stating) how many positive and negative G's the Dr.1 or F.1 could take?

 

2. May we know how many G's your plane's design is rated for?

 

3. What range of G's do you pull when flying aerobatically?

 

I have a friend (Dave Gillespie in Canada) who has a Camel replica.  He flies aerobatics at Oskosh in the Kristen Eagle and a vintage Tiger Moth.  Dave says flying the (radial not rotary) Camel is a lot like flying the Tiger Moth.  He takes it easy because the DeHaviland is vintage, of course.  +4 and -1 G is the  average range during one of Dave's exhibitions and he is nowhere near blacking out at any time.  

 

4.How's it for you in the Dr.1?  Ever get a little light-headed?

 

Generally, a healthy pilot can withstand 7 to 9 negative Gs for about three seconds before passing out.  I'd like to relate that to what the early planes were capable of; to examine the likelihood of a maneuvering-induced blackout occurring before a structural failure of the airframe occurred.  

 

The actual experiences and observations of yourself and Dave Gillespie provide a benchmark.  Anything you can share will help.  Thank you!  

 

 

 

WERNER KITE FACE.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

1. Do you know (or know where I can find the design specs stating) how many positive and negative G's the Dr.1 or F.1 could take?

Depends on the state of the glue used.

 

Here is what you do with those planes to test the wing strenght:

Volllast-1024x768.jpg

 

This just the case of the Nieuport built in my post above. You can count the sandbags if you like, but in general you pull about 4.5 G and it should be ok to get your AC certified. In sailplanes you pull up a wingtip with a winch until you get rated load (or it cracks). When Klaus Holighaus introduced the carbon fibre wing for his then new Mini-Nimbus sailplane, he pulled until the winch collapsed. The wing was still intact. Back then IIRC, they also would also use one early construction model to be loaded with sandbags until it cracked. From this they just had a general idea what to expect. But lots of sandbags were just good hope than clear numbers.

 

Even later on, max loads were not a trivial matter to assess, as a wing cracks differently under G load as when loaded as shown above. Jimmy Doolittle wrote his PhD thesis about wing cracking behavior. For this, he took a Ford Trimotor and dived it near Vne and pulled it out as hard as he clould until he heard evil noises from the spar. This was IIRC around 7+ G.  Then landed to assess the damage. I guess he never told his mom about that.

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good timing! I just made this video yesterday...I did all of this under 2Gs

 

 

15 hours ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Chris, 

 

First of all, Great planes!  Wow!

 

Second, I'm refining the sim pod design and now it will include pitch mobility.  Thanks again for the plans.  Fake Spandaus are easy to make out of a 2 X 6 and a piece of ABS pipe.  And you can bet my cowling (the end of a big waterpump pressure tank) will have Werner's Kite face, too.  

Love it!

Thirdly, (and to the point) I'm studying the FC1 pilot blackout model and have some questions for you.  

 

1. Do you know (or know where I can find the design specs stating) how many positive and negative G's the Dr.1 or F.1 could take?

No, but I remember reading somewhere about Tony Fokker's loading, and it came out to about 6 Gs, which would be a near impossibility to reach.

2. May we know how many G's your plane's design is rated for?

Again and unfortunately, no.  I have hit about 2 Gs doing aerobatics.  Getting more than 2 Gs would require a substantial dive to hit 150+ mph, and it would last a fraction of a second.  These old planes have too much drag to sustain anything more than 2 Gs or so, even that is doubtful.  

3. What range of G's do you pull when flying aerobatically?

It is on my agenda to install my G meter.  Maybe for next flight?  Based on what I feel, I don't think I get any more than 2 Gs at this point.

I have a friend (Dave Gillespie in Canada) who has a Camel replica.  He flies aerobatics at Oskosh in the Kristen Eagle and a vintage Tiger Moth.  Dave says flying the (radial not rotary) Camel is a lot like flying the Tiger Moth.  He takes it easy because the DeHaviland is vintage, of course.  +4 and -1 G is the  average range during one of Dave's exhibitions and he is nowhere near blacking out at any time.  

I've heard the Tiger Moth uses the same airfoil as the Camel...unconfirmed on my part however.

 

4.How's it for you in the Dr.1?  Ever get a little light-headed?

Not in the slightest.  I'm 36, average shape, slim build.  I could fight all day long in the Dr.I if my opponents were absent bullets :)

 

Generally, a healthy pilot can withstand 7 to 9 negative Gs for about three seconds before passing out.  I'd like to relate that to what the early planes were capable of; to examine the likelihood of a maneuvering-induced blackout occurring before a structural failure of the airframe occurred.  

 

The actual experiences and observations of yourself and Dave Gillespie provide a benchmark.  Anything you can share will help.  Thank you!  

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing turns on a dime! Wow!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, amazing! You can see the tail dragging... Beautiful footage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, 

 

Thanks; that takes me where I was going.

 

So, Anthony Fokker rated the Dr.1 for about 6 negative G's?  Designers usually factor in a percentage in excess of that stress before it actually strains; but let's (overlook those skin-shedding incidents and ) just go with that number.

 

Like you: I don't see how it can go fast enough to generate 6 G's.

 

You pulled 2 G's wringing her out pretty good.  

 

Back in the 80's, I'd dogfight Joe Kolman's Ercoupe in my '46 Luscombe 8E over the fields between Rio Vista and Travis AFB.  It had a C85-12F with a FPP and the size and weight are in the same ballpark as all these WWI fighters.  In the excitement, there were times when I actually scared myself by how hard I hauled back on the stick and how the plane responded; but like you I don't think I ever pulled much more than a couple Gs.  And I was flying it as hard as I could.  (That was stupid: looking back and considering how old she was.  Young, dumb, and very lucky.)

 

But let's say WWI fighters could subject the pilot to as much as five or six G's.  Aerobatic pilots are known to sustain that for extended periods of time without G-loc.  Between 7 to 9 G's will render you unconscious in about 3 seconds; but you can do 5 G's all day without taking a nap.

 

So, let's say I'm in an extreme right turn; banked almost 90 degrees over, riding top rudder to keep the nose up, and hauling back on the stick to bring the guns to bear on somebody's six.  As the model stands now in FC1: I will black out unless and until I ease the stick forward.

 

In sims, I can see that happening in a Spitfire; but in a triplane or the like?  Hmmmm.....   

 

Anyway, thanks for the answers and here's a pic of my plane "Lucky."  Joe shot this pic from his Ryan Navion en route to the Antioch DZ at 012; now covered by a housing project.

 

PS: Looked to me like you were actually turning tighter than we can in FC1.  Mine won't kick around 180 that quickly and I know how to make it want to, too.  

 

Nice landing, also.  Prosit!

 

 

 

LUSCOMBE IN FLIGHT - Copy.jpg

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


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

Good timing! I just made this video yesterday...I did all of this under 2Gs

 

 

 

 

Apart from the nice illustration of the turn, I was struck by how different the Dr1 and Camel sounded in the take off: is the Camel a radial, not a rotary?  I could not get a clear enough picture to see if the cylinders are spinning.  

Share this post


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

So, Anthony Fokker rated the Dr.1 for about 6 negative G's?

Positive G‚Äės. Negative are usually less. But don‚Äėt confuse load test with any kind of ‚Äěrating‚Äú. Those aircraft were not ‚Äěrated‚Äú for loads. They were just deemed solid. Also in case of the Dr.I, at highest speeds the top wing carries all the lifting while the middle and bottom wing pull downwards, it starts effectively¬†to pull the aircraft apart. That no situation to do stupid things.

 

Also, you‚Äėre ruining the airframe even if you do not see visual damage. An intrepid¬†man won the aerobatic championships in a Zlin, even tough the aircraft was not certified for the loads required. But he figured he could do it, as long as he made the aircraft a write-off after relatively few hour of such use. An aircraft can be ruined¬†much before the wing comes off.¬†

 

Basically what you did (as you described) could well be the reason for the next one losing a wing in severe turbulences in a later flight of the aircraft mentioned. Flexing acts as bearing loads. All you need is a tiny crack and you set the flexing on a counter. On the other hand I would doubt you went past 5 g without a g-meter present on the dash. And if you really did 5 you would already shortened the life of that aircraft.

Share this post


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

 

Apart from the nice illustration of the turn, I was struck by how different the Dr1 and Camel sounded in the take off: is the Camel a radial, not a rotary?  I could not get a clear enough picture to see if the cylinders are spinning.  

Good ear! The AA Camel has a 150 hp rotec radial engine on it. It resembles a Camel, but it is not very accurate to the original plane except in its general layout and dimension.

 

12 hours ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

So, Anthony Fokker rated the Dr.1 for about 6 negative G's?  Designers usually factor in a percentage in excess of that stress before it actually strains; but let's (overlook those skin-shedding incidents and ) just go with that number.

 

But let's say WWI fighters could subject the pilot to as much as five or six G's.  Aerobatic pilots are known to sustain that for extended periods of time without G-loc.  Between 7 to 9 G's will render you unconscious in about 3 seconds; but you can do 5 G's all day without taking a nap.

The vase majority of people will need to perform an anti-g strain with their body to avoid blacking out at 5Gs and up.

 

So, let's say I'm in an extreme right turn; banked almost 90 degrees over, riding top rudder to keep the nose up, and hauling back on the stick to bring the guns to bear on somebody's six.  As the model stands now in FC1: I will black out unless and until I ease the stick forward.

In my experience thus far, I would need to be flying much faster, say 150 mph or more, to hit 3-4 Gs.  Even if I did, I couldn't sustain it for more than a second or 2.  So blacking out in a WWI fighter would probably happen only to the most feeble of pilots.

 

Nice landing, also.  Prosit!

Thanks!

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory (bad luck) you could reach momentarily more than 2 Gs when plene would be¬† throw¬† about by wind gust ūüė¨¬†

 

In FC camel you can black out in spiral dive , camel is significantly faster and it's airframe has less drag , but doing more that 150 mph is not needed I think , pulled centrifuge force is enough. Who know if it's correct...

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I understand the difference between positive and negative G's; mine was a dyslexic typo after recent conversations with people tossing the term back and forth.  

 

I also understand that metal has a memory and absorbed stress can result in a subsequent strain.  

 

Regarding the mock dogfight I described: I estimate I only hit about 2 G's in my Luscombe; it was exciting but I came nowhere near to damaging the airframe and I knew that because I am that good of a pilot and I was in control at all times.  I kept "Lucky" for a few years after that; my A&P / IA friends and I crawled all over it every annual inspection; I know who's bought it since then and where it is right now.  No damage whatsoever; still a good plane.

 

And yes: I think if I'd pulled 5 G's it might well have damaged the airframe; but the points I'm making here are: (1) I doubt my plane (or a Fokker Dr.1) could go maneuver fast enough long enough to sustain 5 G's or even four; (2) a pilot can withstand those loads without passing out; and therefore, (3) I have to question whether the blackout function in FC1 is credible; and  I don't think it is.

 

I began looking into the pilot blackout model a couple days ago in a separate thread and came here to ask Chill what kind of G's he's experiencing; maybe that's caused a little confusion and if so: just understand I am more interested in pilot tolerance than terminology or methods of testing airframe strength.

 

And now, upon reading Chill's latest post, it sounds like he is saying it would be awfully hard (if not virtually impossible) to get a plane of this approximate size, weight, and power flying and maneuvering fast enough to generate the forces required to produce G-loc in an average healthy pilot.

 

Therefore, at this time, my opinion on G-loc in FC1 is that it's highly questionable and probably not credible.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


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

Therefore, at this time, my opinion on G-loc in FC1 is that it's highly questionable and probably not credible.

I guess I misunderstood you post then, sorry for that.

 

As for FC, I only can get blackouts in spiral dives. Are there other ways that you manage presistent blackouts? Because in the scenario you presented, I think you wil most likely enter a spiral dive despite opposite rudder.

Share this post


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

 

Therefore, at this time, my opinion on G-loc in FC1 is that it's highly questionable and probably not credible.

I don't remember if I ever black out in FC Dr.1 doing horizon turns.

Did you manage to black out in the slowest and most drag airframe as is FC Dr.1 in the game ?

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know when the wingtip vortices appear for FC planes. It is something that comes before the G-effects kick in. This would kind of be an indicator of the actual G load.

 

Also, I mostly manage G effects to kick in at altitude where tight turns usually quickly turn into spiral dives. At this point The Albatros and by all means the Pfalz easily turn with the Camel. To ensure that there is no diving component to the turn, one had to perform the maneuvers on the deck. And there I never managed to black out, not even wingtip vortices appear for more than split second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  I am flying a Dr.1 in FC1, banked almost 90 degrees pulling positive Gs in a steep right turn; riding top (in this case, left) rudder to maintain altitude.  Then, if I must increase back pressure on the stick to tighten the turn and bring the guns to bear: I can begin to black out depending on how hard I'm turning.  If I maintain the back pressure, I will black out.  If I ease off on the stick, the G-loc fades away but I lose my alignment with the target.

 

Conversely, in situations where a pilot would experience negative Gs and feel "lightweight" in his seat (like when pitching down too forcefully out of a zoom-climb; or when trying to perform an outside loop) I can get a "red out" where it seems like the sim is saying I'm getting too much blood to my brain.  

 

I know that can happen in something fast like a Spitfire or Messerschmidt,  but after what I've experienced flying light planes; and after what Chris has said about flying his Dr.1; I think the Fokker triplane might be too slow to knock you out and maybe the G-loc model in FC1 should be reconsidered by the Devs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackouts - looks like another feature copy and pasted from the WWII theatre into WWI planes.

 

Those excessive blackouts make no sense in WWI planes and Chill just confirmed it. Thank you.

 

S!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we do not know what G forces we‚Äėre actually pulling. I suspect that in the game simworld allows us to pull more G for longer time than what would¬†be possible in the real world.

 

So far it is my *impression* that at higher flight speeds, speed bleed in tight turns¬†is below of what it¬†actually should be. It is rather noticeable with this ww1 crates that if you start a turn at high speed, you can pull through a long time, whereas at slower speed, the higher AoA will act as handbrake quickly. This allowed allowed especially in the ‚Äěgood old pre patch RoF‚Äú times the Camel and the Dr.I do obscene maneuvering. Still in FC, with both the Dr.I and especially the Camel, initial speed is the key to winning the fight. If you enter fast, you will keep much more energy than if you entered slow; you cannot compensate¬†this deficiency. With FC, things have gotten much better though.

 

The maneuvers described require high initial speed. It is plausible to me that the game actually allows for G forces that can cause blackouts, unlike you‚Äėd have in the real aircraft.

 

Thus I doubt that the blackouts are too far off the mark. I think we can still do things that shouldn‚Äėt be possible in such a way.

 

 But we do need a G meter to know what is going on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Blackouts - looks like another feature copy and pasted from the WWII theatre into WWI planes.

 

Those excessive blackouts make no sense in WWI planes and Chill just confirmed it. Thank you.

 

S!

 

Yeah I have also suspected this, (although I hasten to add I have no aeronautical qualifications apart from seat-of-the-pants flying back in the early 80's in very primitive, under-powered, tractor, tail dragging ultra lights …. cowboy stuff really but a shit load of fun).

 

Or is it that we can perform manoeuvre's in FC that were not realistically possible for the planes of the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points on G.

 

Firstly, it certainly was possible to pull enough G on some WWI aircraft to black out. Though the cause wasn't really understood, "fainting in the air", as they called it, was a recognised phenomenon by the war's end. And secondly, I very much doubt that the devs have modelled the effects of G differently for FC than they have for the WW2 aircraft. The calculations involved at finding the G force on the pilot don't depend on the individual aircraft at all (other than possibly seating position, but we don't know if that is included, and WWI aircraft have 'bad' seating position as far as that goes). G is dependent solely on change of velocity, plus the local gravitational field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Blackouts - looks like another feature copy and pasted from the WWII theatre into WWI planes.

 

Those excessive blackouts make no sense in WWI planes and Chill just confirmed it. Thank you.

 

S!

 

That's what I suspect, too: that these blackouts are a  pilot-vulnerability feature inherited from IL2 that hasn't been adjusted to the physics of WWI airplanes yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

That's what I suspect, too: that these blackouts are a  pilot-vulnerability feature inherited from IL2 that hasn't been adjusted to the physics of WWI airplanes yet.

 

A WWI pilot has the same physiology and is subject to the same laws of physics as one during WW2. If anything needs adjusting, it must be the aircraft flight model. Or possibly their damage model in terns of structural strength. I suspect the problems are mostly down to the way people are flying the FC aircraft. Real pilots would have been much more aware of G forces, and less inclined to stress aircraft to the extent that they risked structural failure.

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

A WWI pilot has the same physiology and is subject to the same laws of physics as one during WW2. If anything needs adjusting, it must be the aircraft flight model. Or possibly their damage model in terns of structural strength. I suspect the problems are mostly down to the way people are flying the FC aircraft. Real pilots would have been much more aware of G forces, and less inclined to stress aircraft to the extent that they risked structural failure.

 

Absolutely brilliant, Andy!

 

(And I'm not just saying that because it is, point for point, precisely what I've been saying here.) ¬†¬†‚ėļÔłŹ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A TIMELY COINCIDENCE:

 

Today i flew the new Camel skin GooseH gave me.  Got low fighting an Alby; got bounced by his buddy and was in a steep, constant-altitude right turn at an "almost-knife" attitude; when I blacked right out.  Stayed that way many seconds, too.  

 

I was about 100 feet up when it happened.  Easing off the stick afterwards did nothing; probably too late.  It hit me fast.  When I woke up the plane had bellied-in but I was still alive.  

 

I didn't break the plane by pulling too hard; I was in control doing a tight 180 when the lights went abruptly out.

 

Looking at the FR, there was a brief wingtip vapor trail just as I was losing consciousness.

 

Here's a picture showing the altitude and attitude of the plane when I got G-loc.  You can see the vapor trail, too.

 

The question is: on a nice day at low altitude over the fields, is a plane this slow likely to generate wingtip vapor trails; or generate enough Gs to render the pilot unconscious in a maneuver like this?

 

Well, modern aerobatic biplanes and pylon racers are faster, more maneuverable, and generate more Gs than the Dr.1 or Camel ever could.  And yet, their pilots seem to have no problem with G-loc and we don't see 'em generating wingtip vapor trails, as a rule, either.  So I'm gonna say no.

 

Therefore, I do not believe the pilot G-loc and wingtip vapor trail features we see in FC1 are realistic; and I think they should, perhaps, be adjusted by the Developers.

  

 

 

CAMEL TURN GLOC.jpg

Edited by Todt_Von_Oben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of a Pitts Special producing vapour trails:

 

Whether vapour trails are generated or not depends on lots of factors. In high humidity, it only takes a relatively small drop in pressure to create them. There is no direct correlation between G and vapour trails in real life, and I see no reason to assume there is in IL-2 GB. And even if there is, unless you know what G level triggers them, they don't tell us anything.

 

As for the rest of your post, Todt, as I have already explained, there aren't going to be 'FC G-loc features' involved. G-loc occurs at a certain acceleration along the pilot's Z-axis. It is a direct result of his motion. It doesn't matter whether he is flying a Sopwith Camel, or an F-16. Or is riding a roller coaster. A turn of a given radius, taken at a given speed, results in a given level of G. And we already have a tool which calculates G from this - TacView. Trying to guess what G forces you think you are under from a video is pointless when you can determine it directly.

 

Furthermore, your assertion that pilots of modern aerobatic planes "have no problem with G-loc" is simply wrong. Red Bull racers for instance can pull 10 G. The pilots wear G-suits:

https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/how-the-red-bull-air-race-pilots-keep-conscious-at-10g

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

That's what I suspect, too: that these blackouts are a  pilot-vulnerability feature inherited from IL2 that hasn't been adjusted to the physics of WWI airplanes yet.

 

10 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

A WWI pilot has the same physiology and is subject to the same laws of physics as one during WW2. If anything needs adjusting, it must be the aircraft flight model. Or possibly their damage model in terns of structural strength. I suspect the problems are mostly down to the way people are flying the FC aircraft. Real pilots would have been much more aware of G forces, and less inclined to stress aircraft to the extent that they risked structural failure.

 

The pilot physiology model is complex and includes the amount, duration and speed at which G-forces are applied.

 

 

35. Realistic pilot's physiology model is now active, which takes into account the duration of the G-load and rate the G-load was applied;

 

In other words: whenever you are not flying coordinated and are subjecting yourself to any kind of G, your tolerance to additional G decreases. This is why it's so much easier to black out in a Camel than in an Albatros or Pfalz, as the Camel is far more unstable and it's easier to accumulate more G over time. Only a few days ago I did hear one of my teammates black out in an Albatros, whereas the Camel who was turning with him did not, for the simple reason that he had been turning longer with additional enemies.

 

Whether G-forces actually work like that is a good question. Right now it reminds me of ionizing radiation, where you need a high enough dose over a short period of time or a low dose over an extended period of time to suffer radiation poisoning. All I know is that it does keep you slightly more in check from pulling all kinds of aerobatics all day long.

Share this post


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

 

 

The pilot physiology model is complex and includes the amount, duration and speed at which G-forces are applied.

 

 

35. Realistic pilot's physiology model is now active, which takes into account the duration of the G-load and rate the G-load was applied;

 

In other words: whenever you are not flying coordinated and are subjecting yourself to any kind of G, your tolerance to additional G decreases. This is why it's so much easier to black out in a Camel than in an Albatros or Pfalz, as the Camel is far more unstable and it's easier to accumulate more G over time. Only a few days ago I did hear one of my teammates black out in an Albatros, whereas the Camel who was turning with him did not, for the simple reason that he had been turning longer with additional enemies.

 

Whether G-forces actually work like that is a good question. Right now it reminds me of ionizing radiation, where you need a high enough dose over a short period of time or a low dose over an extended period of time to suffer radiation poisoning. All I know is that it does keep you slightly more in check from pulling all kinds of aerobatics all day long.

 

Yup. The developers aren't just using a simple 'blackout at a certain G' model, which is why any claims that there is something wrong with it need to be backed up with proper tests rather than guesswork. And I'm sure you're right about the Camel being easier to black out in than an Albatros or Pfalz. With anything that responsive and sensitive in pitch, it is very easy to pull too hard. Spitfires are much the same.

 

Regarding how G forces really affect the pilot, everything I've read suggests that it is darned complex. As the devs say, rate of application and duration of load matters. As to the extent to which getting 'tired' by repeated high-G loadings reduces your tolerance, I've not seen any actual data, so it is hard to argue that they are wrong. As I wrote earlier, I suspect that real-life pilots would have been reluctant to pull the sort of G we do, given their justified fears of overstraining the airframe. They'd probably be less likely to have pulled G enough to tire themselves out. Or maybe not. We simply can't know for sure how frequent G-loc induced crashes were, for obvious reasons. What we do know though is that pilots were reporting the effects of G ("fainting in the air") by 1917.

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


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

 

Therefore, I do not believe the pilot G-loc and wingtip vapor trail features we see in FC1 are realistic; and I think they should, perhaps, be adjusted by the Developers.

  

CAMEL TURN GLOC.jpg

 This is almost 90 degree bank angle , at that attitude Gs must be close or more than 4 to keep plane from falling down , without enough pulling the centrifugal force would be not enough strong to keep you in horizontal flight. Prolonged 4Gs is enough to G-lock. Best would be review tacview recording.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 This is almost 90 degree bank angle , at that attitude Gs must be close or more than 4 to keep plane from falling down , without enough pulling the centrifugal force would be not enough strong to keep you in horizontal flight. Prolonged 4Gs is enough to G-lock. Best would be review tacview recording.

 

 

More than 4. As you approach 90 degrees you reach infinite G:

 

c5rFGc0.jpg

 

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Camel can't hold a 90 degrees bank angle (for any significant amount of time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice statistics etc. however I tend to believe a live WWI replica pilot more than those numbers. His statement was pretty clear.

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...