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

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

Nonetheless, I'm still working on my Camel skin just in case ;)

Just make sure it has fur.

pelztasse.jpg

 

Share this post


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

Just make sure it has fur.

 

LOL, synthetic fur though :biggrin: 

Share this post


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

 

The bug might have been just a way of saying or a miscommunication, and I will explain why:

 

No.  He was quite clear.  It was a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 6:52 PM, ZachariasX said:

Just make sure it has fur.

 

The Sopwith Camel template skin is out! I'll see what I can do with it ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The Sopwith Camel template skin is out! I'll see what I can do with it 

 

Is there also the Pfalz D.IIIa ? Could you lead me to the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Is there also the Pfalz D.IIIa ? Could you lead me to the water?

 

Yes, the Pfalz got a skin as well! You can check at Official Skin Template Links. It is the last batch of skins, down the post.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do enjoy reading this thread. 

 

The sheer depth of knowledge displayed in so many of the posts provides for a real education.

 

I'm obliged, gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful - thank you, SeaWolf!

 

Hey, SP1969 - did you like our winding? You can find my video in YOUTUBE under "Dogfight".
Was fun. I guess you had fired a lot of ammo before and were careful about wasting it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had great fun!

 

No, I haven't seen it - do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found it! 

 

No, I wasn't not firing because I had low ammo, I was flying with 'red mist' clouding vision - you'd clipped me with an early burst and I couldn't see you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SP1969 said:

No, I wasn't not firing because I had low ammo, I was flying with 'red mist' clouding vision - you'd clipped me with an early burst and I couldn't see you!

 

Ah well, I thought you must have been hampered somehow. 
A Camel is usually a nasty beast - sorry for killing you that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was fun, I enjoyed it and that is what it is all about, Sir. 

 

I enjoyed watching the movie, too - and I liked the music you used.

 

I look very much forward to the next encounter!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright then - next time, when you see everything, your Camel may chew the tail off my Pfalz!
Pfalz shouldn't try to Tango with Camels. I should try the "Hartmann" then...

 

Oh, and the music is the British band ARCHIVE - the track is called "Lights". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Pfalz shouldn't try to Tango with Camels. I should try the "Hartmann" then...

Actually those last online skirmishes made me realize that the Pfalz can fly much tighter/smaller circle than the Camel. If the Camel does not use its higher speed to climb above the Pfalz and „do a Hartmann“ on him, the Pfalz holds itself remarkably well. It can maneuver at speeds, where the Camel just falls out of the sky. The Camel can never follow a Pfalz‘ scissor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know - although that sounds quite wrong to me. From all I've read, the Pfalz D.III pilots avoided
any turning with Camels, and prefered to only make surprise dive-attacks on them, from which they
could zoom up again with the gained energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Good to know - although that sounds quite wrong to me. From all I've read, the Pfalz D.III pilots avoided
any turning with Camels, and prefered to only make surprise dive-attacks on them, from which they
could zoom up again with the gained energy.

Any Pfalz D.III pilot is ill advised even thinking about continued turnfighting a Camel. The catch here is that the Pfalz can turn do tight because it gets so slow, to the point where it is almost stoping. This is not a sustained turn. But using superior roll, they can do the scissor so slow that the Camel cannot follow. The Camel requires separation then gaining altitude.

 

The tight turn of the Pfalz is much more od a downward spiral than the Camels. Once it reaches the deck, it cannot keep turning but must resort to a scissor. The sustained turn would be wide enough for the Camel to follow easily.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Any Pfalz D.III pilot is ill advised even thinking about continued turnfighting a Camel. The catch here is that the Pfalz can turn do tight because it gets so slow, to the point where it is almost stoping. This is not a sustained turn. But using superior roll, they can do the scissor so slow that the Camel cannot follow. The Camel requires separation then gaining altitude.

 

The tight turn of the Pfalz is much more od a downward spiral than the Camels. Once it reaches the deck, it cannot keep turning but must resort to a scissor. The sustained turn would be wide enough for the Camel to follow easily.

 Flew the PD3a exclusively for the last two weeks.  It does do what you say, very good at defensive maneuvers but tough to go on the offense with it. Once on the deck about the best you can hope for is that you opponent is very green, and spins it in.:P

Share this post


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

Any Pfalz D.III pilot is ill advised even thinking about continued turnfighting a Camel. The catch here is that the Pfalz can turn do tight because it gets so slow, to the point where it is almost stoping. This is not a sustained turn. But using superior roll, they can do the scissor so slow that the Camel cannot follow. The Camel requires separation then gaining altitude.

 

The tight turn of the Pfalz is much more od a downward spiral than the Camels. Once it reaches the deck, it cannot keep turning but must resort to a scissor. The sustained turn would be wide enough for the Camel to follow easily.

 

The "downward spiral" here is the (in context) lesser performing plane having to use gravity to stay out of the enemy sights, until it runs out of air.

A good pilot can drag a Camel to the ground in an E3 if he wants, before innevitably succumbing, assuming the Camel pilot is at least half decent !

In RoF dogfights it's rare to see anyone flying the PD3, and once there's 20+ planes in FC, I expect it'll be the same.

It's quick kill or be killed for the Pfalz if it commits to a full on engagement. Verses a Camel I try and fly it more like Spad or SE5. Speed and altitude retention are crucial.

Lovely plane, but in a scrap it's always felt like a bit of a lump.

 

S!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

In RoF dogfights it's rare to see anyone flying the PD3, and once there's 20+ planes in FC, I expect it'll be the same.

 

Off-topic, but you should come to the Thursday night fly-in on RoF some time...not too long ago I saw 12 Pfalz D3s flying in formation...

Edited by US103_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pfalz D.III is very sturdy; almost unbreakable in steep dives (mind the engine revs though!).
That makes her perfect for surprise attacks from high up.

The she is also stronger in the prop climb than the Camel, or so it seemed to me.

The Camel has a great aerodynamic climb (wing lift), but the more vertical the Pfalz goes,
the more the Camel drops back and has to break off. 

 

If the Pfalz performs a quite vertical elliptical combat, it gets hard for the Camel pilot;
due to said lesser prop-climb, and also because of his bad vision over the upper wing.

But to be honest, I'd rather avoid any longer turning with Camels, climb back to superior alt

and try it again from there. You never know which "squirming toad ace" sits in the Camel...

 

56 minutes ago, US103_Larner said:

 

Off-topic, but you should come to the Thursday night fly-in on RoF ...

 

Thursday night flight? When does it start? Which server?

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It alternates weekly between Wargrounds and Cubans Syndicate. Start time is between 8-9 PM EST

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! All

 

I was looking at the speed of the Dr.1.   At ground level the Dr.1 does about 101 to 104 mph.

 

I am not sure but I think it should be a bit faster.

 

I went through a few of my books and found:

 

Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M. Lamberton 1960

speed at altitude .........................................................time to climb

103/13100 mph/ft ....80/18000 mph/ft........ 3.45/6500 min/ft .....6.30/9800 min/ft

155/3992 kph/m .......129/5486 kph/m

 

Fokker Dr.1 A Windsock Data file special 1991

115/sea level mph/ft ..........102.5/13125 mph/ft

 

Fokker V5/Dr.1 by Schuster and Engels 1998

 

pressure..... temp...... Air density...... rate of climb............ altitude......... Horizontal speed

mm Q.-S.......C................ Y................... m/sec.............. Actual. m/Ft.............. m/sec..... kph... mph

538............. -5............. 0.93................... 4.0 ...................2780/9120 ...............43.6....... 157.... 97

505............. -7............. 0.88................... 3.8................... 3200/10498............. 40.9....... 147.... 91

443 ...........-12............. 0.79.................. 2.2................... 4180/13714.............. 38.8....... 139.... 86

 

 

Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr.1 by Jon Guttman 2008

speed at altitude

102.5/13120 mph/ft

 

Profile Publications Number 55 The Fokker Dr.1 by J.M.Bruce 1965

102.5/13120 mph/ft

 

 

Fokker Dr.1 in Action Aircraft Number 98 Squadron/Signal publications by H.J.Nowarra 1989

maximum speed 115 mph – no altitude given

 

Fighter planes that made history by David C. Cooke 1958

115 mph / 185 kph no altitude given.

 

Germany's Triplane Craze by Jack Herris 2013

Max speed 115 mph /185 kph no altitude given

 

Fokker Aircraft of World War One by Paul Leaman 201

Max speed 115 mph /185 kph at sea level

103 mph/ 165 kph at 13000ft/ 4000 m

 

Fokker Triplane by Paul Leaman 2003

Dr.1 141 / 17

103 mph/ 165 kph at 13000ft/ 4000 m

 

time to climb

meters / minutes

1000 / 2.9

2000 / 5.5

3000 / 9.3

4000 / 13.9

5000 / 21.9

 

Plane versus Plane by Norman Franks 1998

“Typical maximum speed 103 mph.” no altitude given

 

 

Most of these sources  agree because they often reference earlier works. I believe they are based both on actual trials as well as an article in Flight magazine from 1918.

 

If the Dr.1 was doing 103 mph at 13120 ft, then the 115 mph at sea level does not sound unreasonable?

 

Edited by JG1_Butzzell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

I am not sure but I think it should be a bit faster.

The only "good" test I could find is this one, done by NACA with test flights 1918 and had data normalized later on.

 

The Dr.I does then:

2800 m             96.81 MPH

3300 m             92.52 MPH  

4300 m             85.75 MPH

 

Based on that I would say that anywhere 105 to 110 mph is a reasonable assumed seal level speed. It would make it a tad slower than the Camel with a similar "good" engine. This due to the finer prop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not mind to have a Dr.1 with 110mph at ROF, but the catch is that they are porting these planes to BOX with an increase in speed due to the game engine caracteristics. So they have to compensate for that, because then they can't port a plane with real numbers when every other plane is being ported with a boost (vide Camel at 195km/h). On the summer maps the decrease will be significant. This is how they messed so bad with the 2014 nerfing. Now they are on a predicament (if they care about numbers or the game).

 

We can wait for Chill to install his Le Rhône to his Dr.1. If the numbers come close to the pre-nerfing, it is better to just port the pre-nerfed Dr.1 and let the game engine do its trick. Especially because they won't alocate time for a tweak anyways.

 

Share this post


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

We can wait for Chill to install his Le Rhône to his Dr.1. If the numbers come close to the pre-nerfing, it is better to just port the pre-nerfed Dr.1 and let the game engine do its trick. Especially because they won't alocate time for a tweak anyways.

That would be good. Especially since to get it exact, there might be further tweaks required than just a general increase in speed.

 

When I put in the values of the NACA report on Petrovichs Camel speed charts, here:

Spoiler

372549539-Camelmaximumspeeds-Dr-I.jpg

You can see the yellow line extrapolating the three speed measurements of the report "as the pen goes", that it seems to have a higher speed drop off than the Camel's curves. While the report makes the Dr.I go roughly 110 mph at sea level, it makes it slower with increasing altitude.

 

On average, the Dr.I performance we have now is rather close to that yellow line that I extrapolate from the NACA report. The most marked difference is sea level speed being an estimated 10 km/h slower. But you go up a little, it is not so bad.

 

I really wonder what Chills Fokker does and at which rpms it will do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem with the Dr.1 is the altitude performance, not max speed, because at sea level in ROF nowadays it is hard to catch up a Handley Page, which to me is a bit silly. 

 

Chill tested his Dr.1 and it loses performance quickly at altitude, but his engine does not have the same punch of a rotary with a proper prop (huge), then I think we need to wait. The other aspect is that I doubt that he will push his engine (I wouldn't unless I was told it is 100% safe for wear to push if for a few minutes), so he might test it at 1150-1200rpm, while these engines can go to 1400rpm for an amount of time that we don't really know. 

 

I have written to Vintage Aviator a couple times and they never answer (they build Oberursels) - the only specialized people who do not respond. Even Mikael Carlson and the writer who worked with Javier Arango replied to me and were kind and invested in giving me answers. Even Memorial Flight Association, which owns a historic Dr.1 replica with an original Oberursel engine, replied to me. In fact the guy told me that he had sent in the past several data to the devs. Their Dr.1 has a max speed of 180km/h, in tests he recalls being made at the Service Technique de l'Aéronautique (STAé) at Villacoublay aerodrome. The pre-nerfed Dr.1 might come from these data.

 

Regarding altitude performance, we have a good reference with the Fokker D8 tested at McCook Field in 1921, also with an 110hp Oberursel. It reached 185km/h at sea level, which makes sense if we account for it to be more streamlined (although the wing is thick as a brick).

 

Below is the graph. The real drop in speed comes at high altitudes, which also makes sense in terms of rotary engines. Although I think we will never get a Dr.1 revised, hence why I think that in the current situation it is either stay nerfed or rolled back to pre-nerfing model. But I'm eager to see Chill flying his Le Rhônes!

 

Fokker D8 tested at the Engineering Division of the Air Service at McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio, on May 20, 1921.

yCjY1Zo.jpg

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The real problem with the Dr.1 is the altitude performance

It looks like most devaition could come from that. It would also make adjustments to the FM much less trivial, hence there might be a reluctance to do anything about it at all. Well, unless we had far more complete data.

 

46 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The other aspect is that I doubt that he will push his engine (I wouldn't unless I was told it is 100% safe for wear to push if for a few minutes), so he might test it at 1150-1200rpm, while these engines can go to 1400rpm for an amount of time that we don't really know. 

Having data from 1100 and 1200 rpm runs should give good grounds for extrapolation. I'd assume that those aircraft back then would vary significantly in max rpm reached.

 

EDIT: looking again at the NACA data I drew in Petrovichs chart, it would put "our" Dr.I just about ~5 km/h slower than the one in the NACA report from sea level to 4000 m.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


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

Having data from 1100 and 1200 rpm runs should give good grounds for extrapolation.

 

Yes, I agree. I would imagine so.

Share this post


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

That would be good. Especially since to get it exact, there might be further tweaks required than just a general increase in speed.

 

When I put in the values of the NACA report on Petrovichs Camel speed charts, here:

  Hide contents

372549539-Camelmaximumspeeds-Dr-I.jpg

You can see the yellow line extrapolating the three speed measurements of the report "as the pen goes", that it seems to have a higher speed drop off than the Camel's curves. While the report makes the Dr.I go roughly 110 mph at sea level, it makes it slower with increasing altitude.

 

On average, the Dr.I performance we have now is rather close to that yellow line that I extrapolate from the NACA report. The most marked difference is sea level speed being an estimated 10 km/h slower. But you go up a little, it is not so bad.

 

I really wonder what Chills Fokker does and at which rpms it will do it.

 

 

Surely the best way to extrapolate the yellow line would not be in a straight line but in a curve roughly parallel to the red line, maybe converging towards it at the bottom - or not? Would you get a straight line for any other aircraft?

Share this post


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

 

Surely the best way to extrapolate the yellow line would not be in a straight line but in a curve roughly parallel to the red line, maybe converging towards it at the bottom - or not? Would you get a straight line for any other aircraft?

It would probably be better than me scribbling with my finger. I do wonder whether the real world curves look like theoretical power graphs. It might be steeper or flatter.. not sure. I just tried to "fit" the 3 data points.

Share this post


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

It would probably be better than me scribbling with my finger. I do wonder whether the real world curves look like theoretical power graphs. It might be steeper or flatter.. not sure. I just tried to "fit" the 3 data points.

 

I know - but if you only had three data points on the red camel line at the same altitudes as the three Dr 1 points and then fit them the same way with a best fit straight line, you would not have a Dr.1 value at SL to the right of the red line. Just doing by eye it looks as though the two lines would be very close to the same point at SL. 

 

I think it is fair to compare two curves - including whatever general knowledge we have about the typical shape of these things, or two straight lines of best fit. Not a straight line with a curve, unless you are very sure that that is in fact the shape of each line.

Share this post


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

You can see the yellow line extrapolating the three speed measurements of the report "as the pen goes", that it seems to have a higher speed drop off than the Camel's curves.

 

Where did you get the Camel at 173kh/h at sea level after the nerfing?

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


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

 

Where did you get the Camel at 173kh/h at sea level after the nerfing?

Yes, I think that is the red curve.

Share this post


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

Yes, I think that is the red curve.

 

But who came to this value, because it can't get to 173kh/h in ROF, not in my tests, both in the HUD value or with time over distance. I don't have ROF installed right now, but I'm pretty sure I run the sea level test with the right mixture and got to 185.5km/h. On the HUD, 187km/h. And 5km/h is a lot.

Share this post


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

 

But who came to this value, because it can't get to 173kh/h in ROF, not in my tests, both in the HUD value or with time over distance. I don't have ROF installed right now, but I'm pretty sure I run the sea level test with the right mixture and got to 185.5km/h. On the HUD, 187km/h. And 5km/h is a lot.

I assume it is Petrovichs data, as he posted it in another thread. As for how exactly he came up with this, I do not know. But I assume their robot pilot for internal testing works slightly different than just autolevel and I did not care to make test flighs on my own for that. So who knows. But I assume it must be data from when they came up with the RoF patch, so it must be old and maybe not reflecting FC in detail. So i take it with a grain of salt, but it shows well where they didtribute supposed power outputs.

Share this post


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

I assume it is Petrovichs data, as he posted it in another thread. As for how exactly he came up with this, I do not know. But I assume their robot pilot for internal testing works slightly different than just autolevel and I did not care to make test flighs on my own for that. So who knows. But I assume it must be data from when they came up with the RoF patch, so it must be old and maybe not reflecting FC in detail. So i take it with a grain of salt, but it shows well where they didtribute supposed power outputs.

 

Cool, but these tests are weird, because 5km/h is a lot and auto-level means fly in a horizontal line, then I'm not sure how to bot could go any faster. They should test it in-game like the rest of us, because if they have a separate reality in studio and the planes are being ported with different numbers to us, what's the point? What matters is what we get in there, just like any pilot in the war would get. And we don't simulate wear and factory discrepancies. 

 

Or perhaps it is a typo / mistake. As a side note, I think it is better to use in-game data, because to use 'wrong' data will give you wrong results.

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  

×