Knights of the Sky Foundation

[Chill31]

Aside from WWI planes, I've flown some high performance planes in legit dogfights, as pilot and as passenger.  I've also taken several aerospace physiology courses.  I'm not an expert, but I do have a well above average education in it as well as practical experience in a variety of aircraft. 

 

For a pilot withstand G forces, there are a several components that play a factor.  Natural physiology, anti-G strain, G-suit, pilot position in the aircraft (for WWI and WWII aircraft, pilot position does not vary enough to make a difference).

 

Natural physiology is that the average human sitting in a chair can sustain about 3.5 Gs without blacking out and without performing any anti-G strain.

 

As G forces increase above that, an average person will need to perform an anti-G strain.  A sustained G force of 9 Gs is an average maximum. A G-suit gives an extra G of tolerance.

 

The WWI Fokker Dr.I could withstand about 6.5 Gs, obviously highly dependent upon construction quality. This is probably a good average for most WWI aircraft, and the reason I mention that is because we aren't going to see 10+ Gs from a WWI aircraft. We are really talking about G force physiology under 6 Gs.

 

WwI aircraft cannot sustain 6Gs. They can't even sustain 4Gs.  In a level turn, max sustained Gs is probably no more than 2, which would be a 60 degree banked turn. (I'll rig up my G meter for my next flight).

 

Momentary (3 seconds or less) G force upto 9 Gs  (indeed to double check that) wont even cause a gray out.  

 

My experience in WWI aircraft is that it is impossible to sustain 3.5 Gs for more than 180 degrees of turn. I havent entered a turn from more than about 115 mph, but the turns I have done have all been around 2Gs.  My resting G tolerance is right about 3.5, and I haven't had even the slightest gray out in my vision.

 

When I was dogfighting in high performance planes, the typical dogfight breaks down into about 4 G sustained turning.  Yes, it is tiring after 5 minutes,  but a modest G strain will keep the gray away.  If you had a fight at 4Gs and then you had to get on it at 6 Gs or more, it could be challenging to keep the gray away. I would not hesitate to say that I could spend 10 minutes or more at 4Gs fighting though.

 

In WWI, I'm not sure if they knew about anti-G strain. In this case, an average pilot would begin to gray out at 3.5 Gs and could black out or suffer G-LOC at anything more than that.

 

------

Wing vapor trails on a WWI aircraft are a bit of a stretch in my opinion.  Vapor trails come from high velocity air creating low pressure vortices off the wing tips.   Greatest low pressure occurs with high angles of attack on the wing. Low pressure also increases with increased airspeed. If we are going fast generate high angles of attack, we pull lots of Gs, hence the reason vertices are commonly seen on maneuvering aircraft instead of aircraft flying strained level.  In my experience, I have never created vortex trails under 4 Gs...I will be shocked if I ever have the opportunity to make them in a WWI fighter. 

 

[Chill31]

I am looking for a German-English speaking person who will translate the Oberursel URII manual ? any volunteers? It is 12 pages. With pictures!

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I don't know if i have time to do that but you can pass it to me via P.M.

[Chill31]

For all of the WWI flight sim fans, we are organizing FOUR rotary powered Fokker Dr.Is to fly together October 2-3 at Dawn Patrol 2020! No one has seen and heard this in over 100 years! I am super excited about it!?

 

As part of this journey, I am planning to take a PC setup and have Flying Circus available for people to give WWI flight simulation a shot!  I should have the Camel stick sold by @vonrickenbecker  by then, so people can try it with a real Camel control stick!

 

If you are interested, it would be awesome to see you there! If you don't mind contributing, we sure could use the help covering travel expenses...We calculated it will take $10,000 dollars in travel expenses to get all four aircraft to and from the event. We should get a lot of awesome video out of the event to share with everyone!

 

PLEASE make a tax deductible donation to this historical cause and/or join us in Dayton, OH! Any amount helps! and share this with anyone you know who loves aviation and WWI aviation history.

 

Donate Here

Thank you!
Chris

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Correct if i'm wrong, I was doing G (dark vision and blackouts) tests in Camel during left horizontal turns - initiated with small dives because Camel can't sustain long horizontal level turns and its initail speed in not enogh,  I can lost all vision but regain it back without losing consciousness (so they are wide spirals). I always  did  restart mission to exlude previous fatigue.
If tacview is correct.
In sumary:
I start have gary-out at 1,7 G after 4 sec incrising Gs from 1 to 1,7.
I enterd black-outs and lost consciousness at 1,8- 1,9 G after 2 sec.

 

I can make it more agressivly from 1 - to 2.0 G in like 5 sec and then lost consciousness. 

 

 

According to G onset rate versous G tolerance chart I should not be albe to black-out becouse I was not in 4G any time.
 

Edited February 10, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[ZachariasX]

No way you should black out... if you really did <2 g... that is strange indeed.

[AndyJWest]

The Tacview graph seems to show a push into negative G immediately before pulling positive G. From what I've seen of real-world data, that should reduce your tolerance, though I'd be surprised if it halved it. Would it be possible to repeat the tests without the negative G?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

59 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The Tacview graph seems to show a push into negative G immediately before pulling positive G. From what I've seen of real-world data, that should reduce your tolerance, though I'd be surprised if it halved it. Would it be possible to repeat the tests without the negative G?

I need to speed up a little bit but this time not so much into negative G but still lost consciousness .

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

This chart is from Camels duel - nobody have lost conscious.

 

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

This chart is from Camels duel - nobody have lost conscious.

 

 

This Tacview can analyze tracks or it has to be on the fly?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Just now, SeaW0lf said:

 

This Tacview can analyze tracks or it has to be on the fly?

Tracks acm files, on the fly - that would be cheat ;-)

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Tracks acm files, on the fly - that would be cheat ?

 

"On the fly" meaning that you have to be flying with Tacview open. Can I analyze an old track with this software?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

5 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

"On the fly" meaning that you have to be flying with Tacview open. Can I analyze an old track with this software?

Must be closed. You can't run both at the same time, ofcourse ,you have to  enabled it (recording acm files) in your cfg for single player and in multiplayer server in config file also.

Edited February 10, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Must be closed. Yes ofcourse , if you enabled it in you cfg for single player and if server have it enabled in config file.

 

Cool, I have no idea about what the software does, I just liked the g-forces thing and wanted to use it on my tracks. Could you give me a link for me to download it? Or just look for “Tacview” on Goggle? Does J5 Flugpark have it enabled?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Cool, I have no idea about what the software does, I just liked the g-forces thing and wanted to use it on my tracks. Could you give me a link for me to download it? Or just look for “Tacview” on Goggle? Does J5 Flugpark have it enabled?

Yes J5 has it enabled.  

https://www.tacview.net/

[Chill31]

How landings should be in a Fokker Dr.I.  Not so much bouncing and ground looping.

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

12 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

How landings should be in a Fokker Dr.I.  Not so much bouncing and ground looping.

 

Yup, they could fix that. Many times we award a kill just because the Dr.I simply refuses to land properly.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Do old idea of adjusting in game Dr.1 by @AnPetrovichbased on your @Chill31real Dr.1  feedback is still in plans somewhere in the future ? 

This not urgent project if accomplished would  be really fantastic TBH.

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 4/4/2020 at 2:05 PM, Chill31 said:

How landings should be in a Fokker Dr.I.  Not so much bouncing and ground looping.

 

 

 

Clearly reality has a simplified FM.

[No.23_Gaylion]

So I've applied to jasta 2, 4, 5, 6, 10,11, 27, 30. 

 

Did I miss any?

[J2_Trupobaw]

4 and 10 did not use Dr.I. 26, 36, 15/18 and four Jastas of JG II did

[Chill31]

On 4/5/2020 at 7:52 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Do old idea of adjusting in game Dr.1 by @AnPetrovichbased on your @Chill31real Dr.1  feedback is still in plans somewhere in the future ? 

This not urgent project if accomplished would  be really fantastic TBH.

I dont know.  He may not even know.  He asked me for some videos of the stability and handling characteristics, so am working on camera setups for the DR.I so he can see everything, inside view, outside view looking forward and outside view looking rearward. 

 

It is looking I will also have the 120 Rhone running this year,  AND it will have an exact copy of an original DR.I propeller on it.  Same as Mikael Carlson flies in his.

[J5_Adam]

On 4/6/2020 at 8:30 AM, J2_Trupobaw said:

4 and 10 did not use Dr.I. 26, 36, 15/18 and four Jastas of JG II did

 

Not sure I understand what you're saying. Pretty sure that 4 and 10 and many others used the Dr1.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/germany/fokker_dri.php

[J2_Trupobaw]

Perhaps I need a closer look. From what I know of JG I, Jasta 6 was the single all-Dr.I squadron, and Jasta 11 flew mix of Dr.Is and D.Vas. Jasta 10 was all-D.IIIa top cover unit, Jasta 4 flew mix of Albies and Pfalzes. MvR was big on combined arms. But I don't know how much these were rules  and how much general roles.

 

 

In JG II (Jasta 15/18 and three others), and JGIII (Jasta B, 26, 27, 36), every Staffel used Dr.Is. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[J5_Adam]

15 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Perhaps I need a closer look. 

 

[SeaW0lf]

Perhaps Jasta 10 got the prototipe Fokker F.I 103/17 (Werner Voss) and people consider it a Dr.I. The F.I 102 (MvR) went to jasta 11 if I'm not mistaken.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Perhaps. Jastas were flying whatever they could get their hands on and plane types squadrons were not supposed to be flying crop out quite often. It is really bad when tracing Pfalz D.IIIa aces, because most Jastas using it were also flying other types and did not bother noting what pilot was flying when scoring a victory (Voss is suspected to have scored a lot in Pfalz and be one of D.III aces... but there is no definite proof he scored any victories in it). A plane was a plane, apparently.

I'm sure flying Dr.Is was not intended role of Jastas 4 and 10, and I don't remember any photos or even colour plates of such Dr.Is. But Adam's right that lack of proof is not proof of absence. I am away from my books, with only memory and google to help, and my interest in these squadrons was mainly as succesful employers of Pfalz (Jasta 10 became the first Jasta to receive Fokkers D.VII in May 1918, precisely because they were a Pfalz unit). 

Not sure if it's really revelant to the topic, but if anyone has hard data on this I'd love to see it.

Edited April 7, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[J5_Gamecock]

Jasta 5 received some J11 hand me down Dr1's  when they began getting the DVII. These were flown along with their DVa's for a few months until they got reequipped with the DVII as well.

 

   From "Jagdstaffel 5"  volume 2   by GK Merrill

 

 

On 9 May, Rumey gained another victory, having encountered Breguets once again. His likely victim came from Escadrille BR 107, Breguet 14 1434 crewed by Mdl. Leon Genot and SILt. Jardin, both killed North of Villequier (Bailey and Cony list the former as WIA and the latter unhurt). This day was memorable for another reason. On 9 May, Jasta 5 began to be re-equipped with Fokker triplanes. This is not quite as wonderful as it might seem. It is true that Jasta 5 was getting rid of some pretty old Albatros fighters, but they were not getting great prizes in triplanes for, in spite of the lofty reputation they had in some quarters, these particular machines were heavily-used and in some cases probably in worse shape than the aircraft they replaced. They were a mixed bag of cast-offs from JG I, Jastas 11 and 6, as those units received Fokker D.Vlls and made the Dr.ls locally available and redundant. A few JG I pilots may have been fond of Fokkers quirky little three-winged machine because ~ was highly manoeuvrable, but the pace of air war had accelerated considerably and the triplane was simply too slow for aerial warfare as it was evolving in 1918. Photos of these triplanes show them generally worse for wear, tired-looking, and overpainted repeatedly to the point of being a cacophony of colours, old and new. Thanks largely to the flight logs of Mai and van Hippel, we have the identifications of 11 triplanes that served with Jasta 5 during May to July 1918 when the unit was entirely re-equipped with Fokker D.Vlls. The paucity of photos and heavy overpainting makes it difficult to identify a particular aircraft. The serials were: 139,152,168,172,554,557,558,567,577,588, and 592/17. Even this list has uncertainties. For example, van Hippel says that he flew 557/17, but he was photographed with 577/17 (win 2247). Did he fly both or is this another case where he transposed or erroneously repeated digits as we know he did with the unit's LVG and suspect he did with some of his Albatros fighters? Almost certainly Jasta 5 received these machines not because of their distingUished combat record, but rather because of geography - they shared an airfield with JG I so that the transfer involved no more than rolling them from one hangar to another. I have read that Jasta 5 did not apply any paint to these triplanes because they were interim equipment. Photographic evidence dictates otherwise. Machines coming from Jasta 6, such as Beckmann's old mount, had paint applied to cover the black and white stripes on their horizontal tailplanes. The earlier stripes show faintly through the paint intended to cover them. This paint could only have been applied at the receiving unit. The purpose of that paint was two-fold. First it obscured the markings of the previous unit. Second, it advertised the identity of the new owners and, interim or not, this unit wanted to be correctly identified in the air. The paint looks similar in hue from aircraft to aircraft as it was used to cover unit and individual markings. Although it is possible that Jasta 5 chose some new colour to advertise their presence, they had been known as 'Green Tails' to friend and foe alike for nearly a year. It is extremely unlikely that the colour was anything other than the green they had used for so long. It would cover black and white tailplanes of ex-Jasta 6 aircraft and the corresponding red parts of machines from Jasta 11. Moreover, to complete the decor, black cowls on former Jasta 6 machines were probably painted red; those from Jasta 11 were probably uniformly red already. Nevertheless, in spite of the faults in design and the used conditions of these particular triplanes, the Fokker Dr.1 in the hands of a skilled pilot could still be effective, enabling it to dogfight effectively, at the same time being able to use its manoeuvrability to escape trouble. We think that Rumey was flying one of these 'new' mounts the following day when he scored his 17th victory over an SE5a east of Hamel. According to British sources (Henshaw) a pair of enemy aircraft, we would guess Rumey and K6nnecke flying the first-arrived triplanes, engaged elements of NO.56 Squadron near Bray-sur-Somme (or East of Hamel) and Rumey is credited with shooting down SE5a 05993 killing Lt. B W Harmon. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[J5_Adam]

They colour profiles are out there. Ernst Udet flew a Dr1 with Jasta 4
 

[Chill31]

20 minutes ago, Adam said:

They colour profiles are out there. Ernst Udet flew a Dr1 with Jasta 4
 

A gentleman posted on facebook, on this day in 1918, MvR and Udet were flying together in Dr.Is when MvR shot down 77 and 78.

[J5_Adam]

@Chill31 I heard someone mention about the Oberusal URII 110  And Le Rhone 110 actually putting out a ho closer to 115 or 120 or something like that. Do you know about this at all?

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

This paint could only have been applied at the receiving unit.

+25 kilos or so for every repaint. We should have weight penalties in the game for personalized color schemes that deviate from factory paint...

[Chill31]

22 hours ago, Adam said:

@Chill31 I heard someone mention about the Oberusal URII 110  And Le Rhone 110 actually putting out a ho closer to 115 or 120 or something like that. Do you know about this at all?

Yes. The 110 Le Rhone 9J received a modification to 9Jb which was a change from steel to Aluminum pistons. They got another 10 hp out of it. The Germans called the the 120 Rhone and based their oberursel on that engine. The URII and the 120 Rhone gave more horsepower than the first generation 130 clerget.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Chill31

[Chill31]

[Todt_Von_Oben]

Hi Chris, 

 

Hope all's well with you and yours.

 

I'm working on my sim pod and don't have easy access to the plans you gave me at the moment; that file's on a computer in another location and we're on lockdown.   So I need to ask you for a dimension.

 

What is the diameter and depth of your Dr.1 engine cowling, please?

 

Thank you.  

[Chill31]

5 hours ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Hi Chris, 

 

Hope all's well with you and yours.

 

I'm working on my sim pod and don't have easy access to the plans you gave me at the moment; that file's on a computer in another location and we're on lockdown.   So I need to ask you for a dimension.

 

What is the diameter and depth of your Dr.1 engine cowling, please?

 

Thank you.  

Thank you and likewise! It's a good time to get stuff done in the shop.. 42inches diameter and 15.5 inches deep.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Thank you and likewise! It's a good time to get stuff done in the shop.. 42inches diameter and 15.5 inches deep.

 

Thank you!  

 

Oh, and nice landings in those videos, BTW.  

[Chill31]

For your entertainment!

 

 

[vonrickenbecker]

Dude!! That is incredible. Props for being willing to fly that bird like it was originally designed too! I have got to stop by and see your tripe next time I'm GA visiting family. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

I dare you to try that again with Simplified Physics turned off.