Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Plank

The Camel: Will it chew up and spit out the DR1? We ask our panel of experts....

Recommended Posts

Chatting with the chaps about the impending Camel...over a brandy and toasted crumpet.

 

Thor suggested it might/will be amazing.

Q1: Is his expectation well founded?

 

Q2: Will it be amazing OR will it be always be  just a whisker less than the DR1 ( like it is in RoF ) and therefore always play second fiddle?

 

Personally I find the FM in RoF to be a bit weird.

The way it won't fly upside down at all. Even.

It skates off inverted level flight like an angry jelly fish off wet glass.

( this makes certain moves very difficult )

 

and... other things we dare not mention....

 

Q3: Will it be the killer that Entente really need?

 

Or ....something else....

 

We wait with baited breath.

 

Salute!

 

Planky. ( Average Camel pilot...)

 

Edited by Plank
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, ok, I'll bite...

 

The Fokker Dr1 is my benchmark, both in real life and in the sim, so that is what I will use to comment/compare to the Camel.

 

I am going to use Javier Arango and Peter Garrison's research conducted with an in flight data recorder on a 160 Gnome Camel, article here: Sopwith Camel.

 

"Its center of gravity was far aft, particularly with full fuel — the 30-gallon tank sat behind the pilot, in lieu of armor. Nevertheless, it must have possessed some longitudinal stability because it had no trim and the pilot had to hold forward stick after takeoff."  

 

This should feel similar to the DR.1.  If it doesn't require a constant nose down stick force, something is missing.

 

"It had a vestigial fixed fin, an aerodynamically balanced rudder and a rather short aft fuselage. As a result, it didn’t much care which way it pointed."

 

Again here, this is very similar to the Dr.1, and it should be very similar to the Dr.1 in FC regarding yaw stability.

 

"The ailerons, though large, seem to have been rigged with reverse differential — more down travel than up — so that if you tried to turn with aileron alone, as you can in a modern airplane, you would see lots of yaw in the wrong direction."

 

Adverse yaw is significant in the Dr.1, and it should be even more so in the Camel.  Adverse yaw is the tendency for the nose to swing in the opposite direction of roll input from the pilot and requires the use of rudder to counter act it.

 

"The airplane rolled into a 60-degree bank to the left or right in about 2½ seconds, but the maximum roll rate, reached only momentarily, was about 40 degrees per second to the left and 30 degrees per second to the right."

 

40 Degrees per second would take approximately 9 seconds to roll 360 degrees.  Compared to the Dr.1 which does it in 6 seconds (60 deg/sec roll rate), the Camel should be about 30% slower to roll than the Dr.1.

 

That is the extent of the data I could find from those two guys.  My personal hunch is that the pitch rate and turn rate of the two planes would be pretty close with a slight advantage going to the Dr.1. 

 

Why advantage to the Dr.1?

Dr.1 Airfoil and Camel Airfoil

 

As you look at the charts, look at the purple line which is a Reynolds number of 500,000 and reasonably represents a WWI airplane in flight.  Notice the G298 Cl v Alpha, max is about 1.7 at 15 degrees AOA.  Compare that to the RAF 15 max of 1.3 at 12 degrees AOA.  Given that these two planes are within a few pounds of each other and in consideration of their wing area, the Dr.1 would need to have a Cl of 1.5 to equal the lift produced by the Camel at Cl 1.3.  Cl max and high AOA is not the whole story, just part of it.

 

The other part is drag for a given amount of lift.  The Camel at Cl 1.3 would be at max lift for the wing.  The Dr.I would need 1.5 Cl to support the same weight given the wing area.  At 1.3 Cl, the Camel has about .3 coefficient of drag (Cd) and the Dr.I has about .2 Cd.  If each aircraft was a monoplane, the Dr.I would retain energy in a turn better than the Camel.  However, the Dr.I has an extra wing that doesn't produce as much lift as the others.  In this case, the Cl/Cd ratio is not quite as good, and probably reduces the drag margin from 50% better to something approaching equal, 5%, 10%, 15%?

 

How does that get modeled in FC?  who knows!  Based on Javier's data and my own Dr.I data, in a Dr.I vs Camel fight, scissors should give the best results for the Dr.I pilot, and energy style fighting should give the best results for the Camel pilot.  At the end of the day, it should come down to fuel loading and pilot skill.

Edited by Chill31
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Personally I find the FM in RoF to be a bit weird.

The way it won't fly upside down at all. Even.

 

 

  • Haha 6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, I will have to eat my flying hat.

 

Give that man a medal!

 

Tick. That's one down.

The biggie is will is do in the dreaded DR1?

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video

On 10/20/2018 at 6:47 PM, DD_Arthur said:

 

 

 

I think I've found a video that goes into more detail on the subject: 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cynic_Al
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31 - don't you need to take into account interference between the wings to calculate the effective wing area (and cl/cd)? Apologies if I missed it! But it is an area that needs explanation/exploration considering how rare triplanes are in aerodynamic write-ups!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did it! * squealing *

 

but not under a bridge...

 

6 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

I think I've found a video that goes into more detail on the subject: 

 

I am not super human enough to pull that off!

 

Salute!

 

Planky ( Yes yes yes, I will buy everyone a round... gads... )

 

PS. It is amazing how well the Camel does fly when you empty out the fuel tank.... I think the  effect of "loading" might be a bit aggressive....just saying...

Edited by Plank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a good old 1v1 dogfight, all things being equal, the Dr.I will walk all over the Camel. On the other hand, if the Camel has spotted the incoming Dr.I soon enough, he can turn tail and fly away, provided he doesn't have a massive altitude disadvantage to begin with. This again stresses the need for teamwork on both sides.

 

I think it says enough that by war's end, Camels were relegated to ground attack while SE5as and Bristol Fighters flew top cover for them.

Share this post


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

Camels were relegated to ground attack while SE5as and Bristol Fighters flew top cover for them.

All the thousands of them while the Germans put the whole Dr.I affair to the bin while going for the D.VII design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 10:15 AM, ZachariasX said:

All the thousands of them while the Germans put the whole Dr.I affair to the bin while going for the D.VII design.

 

If I was a German pilot I would happily consign my DRI to the scrap heap for a D.VII.  If I was a British pilot I would be much happier in a SE5a than a Camel.

 

On topic: I would prefer the DRI over the Camel for its climb.  Both turn really well, and the Camel is a bit faster and almost certainly dives better, but the climb advantage of the DRI IMHO can be used both to attack or escape.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 4:15 PM, ZachariasX said:

All the thousands of them while the Germans put the whole Dr.I affair to the bin while going for the D.VII design.


The intended (by designer) role of Camel and Dr.I was very close, but they were deployed by their air services in very different way. A big factor was, Entente had lots of rotary engine but shortage of in-line ones, while Central powers had shortage of castor oil but plenty of in-line engines. Camel was produced in thousands because there was shortage of Hispano-Suiza engines for S.E.5, and because in mid-1917 British would take anything better than Nieuports, Pups and D.H.5s without looking twice. Dr.I were deployed "as intended", in small numbers and only with hand-picked pilots who could really handle them. 

When next-gen planes arrived in numbers (D.VII for Germans, Viper S.E.5as and Bristols for English), the Camels and Dr.Is were both made use of in less demanding roles while they lasted. Camel squadrons were relegated to ground attack, while Dr.I airframes were pulled from elite JGs and handed down to second best squadrons as replacement for D.Vas. As D.VIIs became available for these squadrons the Dr.Is were relegated further and further until they wore down the Dr.I airframes and run out of Albatros-equipped frontline Staffeln. So it wasn't "put in the bin" - as long as Dr.I was combat worthy, it was a welcome replacement for D.Va.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Dr.I were deployed "as intended", in small numbers and only with hand-picked pilots who could really handle them. 

I seriously doubt that. My guess is that Anthony would sell anything, and at best in largest numbers (to anyone). Any deviation from that is an accicdent, a business failure seen from his perspective. It was only handed to a few select "best" pilots because at the time it came out, it was the best German fighter; thus the profilic ones got the first pick. Indeed, there were few rotaries and even less castor oil. As fo Anthony, that was a big "oopsie".

 

It was bad planning from Anthonys side when he tailored wood and cloth to the latest fashion for another good season sale. It had to have a rotary, the Tripe ad a rotary too. And three wings. Three was the new two. That the third (mid) wing was as good as another inch on your girls heels, that Fokker proved himself when getting the design corrected in the guise of the D.II. The Dr.I couldn't be farther from being anything like "planned elite ride for a few select chosen ones". The IdFlieg was again out shopping and what it picked up next to the cashier was something that didn't turn out as useful as it momentarily thought it was. But that's how it goes in that situtation.

 

Besides, I don't think (for ANY air service at the time) that the "difficulty" of flying that crate was an issue, ever. Or at least in a way that would negate it handing to a semi incompetent newbie. All those planes, by todays standards, are all *very* hard to opperate propperly. Yet, you can get used to them, and then they are somewhat ok for their purpose.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points!

 

Still trying to get the Camel to fly upside down on command but, heck, it's not easy.

Even the casual slow roll is hair raising if you are too low...

 

Will be interesting to see how the new stacks up against the old.

 

and there is no way I would swap the Camel for the S35a. ( in RoF )

Loses speed too easily, can't turn that well, guns shoot in the wrong direction.

and it's acceleration is nothing to write home about.

Wings fall off, tank seems to get holed with ease...

It does have a foster mount Lewis. Small mercy.

 

Ace maker? My left foot.

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Plank said:

Even the casual slow roll is hair raising if you are too low...

That is how it is when you are stupid enoug doing such in a real Camel. It is bad for any Camel jockey if any Camel goes low and starts rolling. Old Arab proverb: "If it wallows, you better not be sitting on it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Fokker capitalised on triplane craze while working on D.VII, and managed to push some rotaries, too (he owned the Oberusel and really wanted to make rotary-powered planes, but ended up in country with no castor oil.). He made the triplane concept work by novelty techniques like internally braced wings (less drag) that later led to success of D.VII and D.VIII.

When Dr.I prototypes were evaluated they were considered superior to Albatros, but to demanding for average Jasta pilot to handle. This, along with shortage of castor oil, made Idflieg order them only in small numbers, earmarked for Jagdgeschwedern (which siphoned away the best pilots from regular Staffeln). By the time the upper wing problems were solved and Dr.I entered active service, there was already a fighter competition in plans to find a next-gen plane (which D.VII won), so there were no more orders. Nevertheless, in January-May 1918 Dr.I was standard issue in all JG2 and JG3 Staffeln, and two JG1 Staffeln. All in all, it equipped 10 best out of 80 Staffeln Germans had; about 12.5% of actively used single-seaters (assuming all Staffeln were fully equipped; the less prestigous rarely were, so 12.5% is understated). After D.VII came, it was passed to whomever was still flying Albatrosen.

The Camel history was quite the opposite - Tom Sopwith deliberately wanted to make a difficult but higly maneuvrable plane that would require (and enable!) a very skillful pilot. His target was small, well trained RNAS, already making great use of Tripe. But the RFC had llterally no design that could match the Albatros and be produced in numbers (S.E.5 was only used by No.56 until late 1917), so they took as many Camels as they could  to replace Nieuports, Pups and D.H.5. This plugged the gap in RFC inventory (and resulted in great many inexperienced pilots crashing their Camels, both easily replacable) until in-line fighters could be brought in.

Ironically, if Fokker was working for British and Sopwith for Germans, both planes would likely end up used as intended, rather than opposite.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

As D.VIIs became available for these squadrons the Dr.Is were relegated further and further until they wore down the Dr.I airframes and run out of Albatros-equipped frontline Staffeln. So it wasn't "put in the bin" - as long as Dr.I was combat worthy, it was a welcome replacement for D.Va.

 

I know that the original Albatros D.V was far from popular with pilots and that the D.Va was only a meager step forward with its added reinforcement and "200hp" engine (180hp overcompressed). I can see why many a pilot would have preferred a Dr.I over a D.Va when given the opportunity, even though both types suffered from structural failures.

 

However in Rise of Flight (and Flying Circus by extension), the D.Va benefits from a substantial performance improvement over the Dr.I, even without overcompression. I suppose you could call it a hybrid D.V/D.Va of sorts, with similar performance as the D.III. At the end of the day, what matters is that it's faster than the Dr.I, though indeed not nearly as fast as a D.VII. It can outmaneuver what it can't outrun, and comfortably outrun what it can't outmaneuver — the Sopwith Camel, in particular.

 

Flying Circus multiplayer is as of yet non-existent, and it might stay like this at least until the Albatros D.Va and SE5a make their entry onto the scene.

Share this post


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

That is how it is when you are stupid enoug doing such in a real Camel.

 

Sure, but it's not real and learning the quirks of your machine is hardly a hanging offence

 

I am just quite bemused that the Camel is so tardy once you roll it over.

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Plank said:

 

Sure, but it's not real and learning the quirks of your machine is hardly a hanging offence

 

I am just quite bemused that the Camel is so tardy once you roll it over.

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

 

Plenty of people died doing stupid things at low level with these kinds of planes. Douglas Bader lost his legs doing such even with a way more powerful biplane.

 

There is an article about a guy rolling his Camel for an airshow (have to look for that one again) and he basically concluded that he will never do that again. If an aircraft has around 45* per sec roll, it takes 8 seconds to roll, 2/3rd of which where it is not easy to keep the nose up. 5 seconds time is enough to end up with a nose pointed downward.

 

But you are right, in the sim we can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real dr1 in action,  movie from 1938, two were found in barn, unfortunately were destroyed during second war. Enjoy!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Real dr1 in action,  movie from 1938, two were found in barn, unfortunately were destroyed during second war. Enjoy!

 

 

At 0:28 in the first video, I like the way the plane just pulls away without the pilot touching anything.

Share this post


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

At 0:28 in the first video, I like the way the plane just pulls away without the pilot touching anything.

 

He had pressed E before he gotten into the plane...

 

S!  P.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Gugelhupf ? Never heard of him !"

Fair bit of lag in the first one, I'd no idea it was modelled so well in RoF MP.

I'm sure that second chap was on NW Training sever..

 

S!

Edited by Zooropa_Fly

Share this post


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

 

He had pressed E before he gotten into the plane...

 

Soon to be followed by Esc, I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what is that film, some old German thing?  I'd rather watch that than CGI any day. 

 

What the hell are the Entente flying?  It doesn't look Entente. It's like watching an American movie where an M60 Patton tank takes the place of a panzer.  Still, very neat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

Wow, what is that film, some old German thing?  I'd rather watch that than CGI any day. 

 

What the hell are the Entente flying?  It doesn't look Entente. It's like watching an American movie where an M60 Patton tank takes the place of a panzer.  Still, very neat. 

 

The Stampe was always a very liked and convenient stand-in for other biplanes, and they often some modifications for looks. You find it in „The Blue Max“ and other movies.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

Wow, what is that film, some old German thing?  I'd rather watch that than CGI any day. 

 

What the hell are the Entente flying?  It doesn't look Entente. It's like watching an American movie where an M60 Patton tank takes the place of a panzer.  Still, very neat. 

 

"With Hitler’s rise to power the Richthofen squadron was reactivated in the mid 1930’s. With the commissioning ceremony just days away, a real Fokker DR1 was found languishing in a barn, and another shortly after. The experts who saw it felt both aircraft were genuine Fokker built triplanes. To inspire the revived Luftwaffe, Hitler commissioned a motion picture on World War One, unblushingly filled with propaganda about a German squadron flying triplanes. There are some lovely flying shots of the Triplanes that can be seen in this film. They are in death-defying combat, with modern (1935 hehehe) Bucker Jungmans thinly disguised as Allied SE5’s. Sadly both resurrected triplanes were destroyed in the bombing of Germany in World War Two".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Bucker Jungmans

Yes, indeed. The the original nose with the Hirth engine looks like the Stampe. My mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2018 at 9:04 AM, Plank said:

and there is no way I would swap the Camel for the S35a. ( in RoF )

 

Ace maker? My left foot.

 

 

Funny, I'm the opposite...

 

Comparatively excellent visibility, 

Much more stable gun platform

Excellent speed in level flight / in a dive 

Easy to handle, hard to spin

Pretty good climb rate 

You can dictate the terms of the fight in it

 

I'd much rather be in an S.E than a Camel in almost every engagement (yes, that includes fighting Triplanes). 

 

As for it not being an Ace-maker, well, look at some of the top Wargrounds V-Lives from this year: 

 

Hells Angel (#5 top Ace in 2018) scored 28 victories - 20 in S.E.5s. Furlow (#4) scored 6 of his 29 in S.Es. Hell, in my first month of playing RoF online the S.E.5a was my top Entente plane!

 

...The S.E.5a is dangerous in competent hands and a nightmare for German pilots in experienced hands! 
 

 

 

Edited by Larner
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the yawn factor of the Se5a which bothers me the most .

and it's cruddy turn and the guns not firing correctly. ( Yes the devs have made a hash of it.)

 

Of course if you like drives bys on unsuspecting victims... knock yourself out

 

I prefer the mosh pit with knuckle dusters...

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, gotcha. 

 

I absolutely prefer shooting guys that don't know I'm there - that's the way to rack 'em up...

 

Guns seem fine to me. Last sortie in the S.E. I had 26% Accuracy with 2 victories. 

 

True, the S.E. requires more patience...different planes for different styles, I suppose. I'll get the high huns in my S.E, you get the low ones in your Camel ;) 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Ah, gotcha. 

 

 

Guns seem fine to me. Last sortie in the S.E. I had 26% Accuracy with 2 victories. 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Guns fire in a different direction to the angle of the barrel, and not to its advantage (limitation of RoF and not just the SE5a),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Guns fire in a different direction to the angle of the barrel, and not to its advantage (limitation of RoF and not just the SE5a),

 

Huh, I guess I never really noticed...only ever had trouble hitting shots when someone's going under my nose...

 

very interested to see if anything feels different with FC1's S.E.5a now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward in both the Se5a and the N17 GBR one will be able to look

through the wind shield and comfortably shoot planes that are actually above

the longitudinal centre line of the plane. Unlike what we have now where you have to stand up

to look down the sights and shoot planes below.

 

This might make the "rock in a sock" attack by the se5a more difficult but

also conversely make shooting up much easier. Which is good for turnfights, 

zooming up attacks, attacking planes from behind and below etc and sniping.

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

Share this post


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

Unlike what we have now where you have to stand up

to look down the sights and shoot planes below.

 

 

This is a false statement.  "stand up to look down the sights"???  No.

Share this post


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

This is a false statement.  "stand up to look down the sights"???  No.

 

Yeah, I don't get that at all. Has he never heard of adjusting the camera views? 🙃 It's not like it's a secret. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

No more warnings

 

Haash

 

 

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is quite irritating - you might as well call it: Would the Dr.I chew up and spit out the Camel? Not less likely.
We may never see a fully realistic air combat of two equally good pilots in these two planes, but I wouldn't automatically bet on the Camel.

 

The strong climb of the real Fokker Dr.I is not yet fully implemented in FLYING CIRCUS.
This video of a Dr.I with an original rotary engine shows a very short takeoff run, and an extreme climb! 

 

The second video shows well, that the Fokker had no problem with both turns, left and right (Camel only turned well in one direction).
Also, the Fokker was described by Allied pilots as to have been flown in most aerobatic ways.
Swedish pilot Mikael Carlson demonstrates that here: turning with a half roll for example.

 

The Dr.I could even do the "flat turn" - a turn where the craft just turns on a dime per rudder, without banking.
Werner Voss performed that in his famous last fight against 5 "Scout Experimental", and it was written down by the British pilot,
who witnessed it first hand with great bafflement.
 

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 10:59 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

"Gugelhupf ? Never heard of him !"

 

Always funny, how German military is depicted in older British or American films on both world wars.
"Gugelhupf" (spell: Google-hoopf) is a Bavarian name for this cake - I don't think any German really had it as a family name. :happy:

 

 

Kouglof.png

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...