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

Personally, I think both planes are going to be beast in furballs regardless.

 

I'm more curious if we're going to get a good D.viii whenever it comes to the sim.  The RoF D.viii is the slowest version we could have possibly gotten.  It got the camel treatment in this respect.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


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

Maybe you should have paid more attention to the Hunt video.

 

Funny how you seem to know better than myself, how well I watched that video. 
My native language is not English, so it isn't always easy to hit specific points.
If the video was still available, I would have posted a link instead.
 

To assume, that both the Camel and the Dr.I should have reacted quite similar, just because of the rotary, is pure guess work.
The Camel's airfoils/wing shapes were knife-like, while those of the Dr.I were more the "thick" modern form.
How that influences the behavior in flight, should be proved by performance videos.
I hope Mikael Carlson will provide some more there. Also Gene de Marco or other Camel jockeys.

 

By the way: the Dr.I was built a triplane only, because the Germans were very impressed by the performance of the Sopwith Triplane.
It actually didn't need a third wing, which caused a lot more drag. The Dr.I didn't even need the vertical wing struts, which were only
added because of fears about safety and stability.

The Fokker D.VI was almost the same craft as a biplane version, but when it appeared, the D.VII had already won the competitions.

Only only few were built.

 

PS: I was never a Dr. I fanboy though it might have been a great fighter - I almost only fly the Albatros.
For no logical reasons - many other scouts overtook it left and right - just for the beautiful shapes...

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. My earlier post referred that FC is set in mid 18 and therefore the plane set could reasonably be expected to perform accordingly. 

RoF had to manage a much longer time frame so plane performance was supposedly aligned with the more common model of a type.

The Dr1 wasnt really a poster boy for broad, long term use with lots of development. Although someone will no doubt challenge that statement, I think the gist can be agreed upon.

Share this post


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

Who said FC will be set in mid-1918 ? I thought it would cover ALL of the WW1 air combat?

 

Planeset looks like it.

Share this post


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

Who said FC will be set in mid-1918 ? I thought it would cover ALL of the WW1 air combat?

 

Volume 1 is 1918. It's in one of the official announcements.

Share this post


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

Dr. 1 flight tests:

 

image.png.2fc81007654e66d07492185db5c5e28f.pngimage.png.b1b393b044d7b3e1e05314eca02d53b8.png

 

Camel Flight tests:

 

The most common front line model in 1918 would be the 140 hp Clerget or the B.R. 1 . 

 

notice climb times to 10,000 feet are 8.5 to 10 minutes instead of over 16 minutes for the RoF Camel.

 

image.thumb.png.6c16b5b096804888c0105080cab0677e.png

 

speed and climb performance of the Sopwith and Fokker are comparable.

 

Very interesting data on speed and climb performance Sgt_Joch and thanks for posting!

 

When it comes to the turn performance, many people refer to the advantage the Dr1 had in terms of the thick wing profile and that that is supposed to have endowed the Dr1 with a substantial performance advantage in the turn but as far as I have been been to determine, it looks like this advantage was in Clmax only: The Camel's RAF15 comes in at about 1.4 while the Göttingen 298 is around 1.7 so a clear win for the Dr1. However, the wing profile drag at these Cl seems to be very similar at around Cd=0.03 so not big difference there. A caveat here is that this is data from airfoiltools at Re=1,000,000 which is a bit on the low side but I don't think going to a more representative 3,000,000 will change the conclusions.

 

But what really sets them apart is the wing layout: The Camel has a bigger wing span and a larger wing area and this gives it a significant advantage in turn performance: As far as I have been able to determine, you can estimate bi- and triplane induced drag by calculating a corrected aspect ratio based on the physical span that uses this to estimate a "corrected" span and aspect ratio. This is outlined in figure 19 in Hoerner's book Fluid dynamic Drag page 7-12.

 

I used this to do a ballpark analysis of the Dr1 drag in a max rate turn (see below) and it seems that the main drag is the induced drag which is all of circa 75% of the total drag while the wing profile drag is only 11% so its the Dr1's short span that really hurts it in turn performance and the thick wing profile in no way compensates for this shortcoming. Note that I have assumed a Clmax of 1.45 for the plane which is lower than the profile 1.7 but this is in line with what I would expect IRL I think and I based this on a similar percentage of profile/plane Clmax as a for the the NACA 23012, i.e. 1.58/1.35.

 

Frankly, I was surprised by the results: I have always assumed that one of the Dr1's prime assets was a superiority in turning but it looks like the physics don't agree and even if the Camel had thin wings, the higher aspect ratio it has counts for more so it looks like the Camel comes out on top also in this case.

 

image.png.355d674464a51ffe3408abccaf7f104d.png

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 10:55 AM, SeaSerpent said:

 I think he said it can complete a horizontal 360 in about 16 seconds in both directions.  

 

16 seconds is surely not the max rate turn for the Camel as my Dr.1 can do it in 8.   16 seconds is a terribly long time

 

On 10/31/2018 at 12:45 PM, Holtzauge said:

To answer the question in the OP, IMHO the Camel should thrash the Dr1: Not punishing the Camel for its higher fuel capacity but assuming a similar endurance, i.e. the Camel at around 660 Kg and the Dr1 at 575 Kg, the Camel is faster, has a slightly higher power to weight ratio, slightly better wing loading and a substantially better aspect ratio. Sure, the Dr1 has a higher Clmax but that won’t save it in a turn contest since the Camel will have a better sustained turn rate (not radius mind you) due to the substantial aspect ratio advantage which counts for much more than the advantage the DR1 has due to the thicker Göttingen profile.

 

I don't see how you come up with the following:

"Camel has a higher power to weight ratio"  The Dr.1 has the equivalent of the Rhone 9Jb which is a 120 hp engine (slightly in excess of that) which is within a few HP of the 130 Clerget.  If the Camel weighs 660 Kg as you have stated above, and the Dr1 weighs 575 kg, there is a clear power to weight advantage for the Dr.1.  Quick number crunching shows 660/127 hp = 5.19 kg/hp for Camel and 575/127 = 4.5 kg/hp Dr.1.  Only with the longstroke 130 Clerget at 148 hp does the Camel show comparable powere to weight 660/148=4.45 kg/hp.

 

"Substantially better aspect ratio"  I calculate the Dr.1 aspect ratio (it is per wing, not per wing set) at 8.7 for the top wing (which includes ailerons in the length, but shouldn't for 100% accuracy), 7.3 for the middle wing, and 7.1 for the bottom wing.  For the Camel, I calculate 6.9 for the top and bottom wing each.  Aspect ratio is span^2/wing area, BUT it can only be computed for one wing at a time, and then averaged.

 

 

On 10/22/2018 at 1:02 AM, Avimimus said:

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!

 

Yes, you would want to take that into consideration.

 

The way I have been calculating drag (I havent done it for the camel, because I don't know the gap between the wings) is using Max Munk's biplane interference factor.  This takes into account differences wing gap and span on a BIPLANE (not, that doesn't say triplane).  It plays a role in the drag equation by altering the aspect ratio.  

 

For both the Triplane and Camel I can only guess at this point, since I don't have accurate data for the Camel wing gap, and the equation was designed for a triplane configuration.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL; DR: Fokker thinks Any 1918 Entente plane should beat the Dr.I. The Dr.I done tright is the D.VIII, but if you are shopping for the best aircraft, get the D.VII.

 

 

 

I was going through my library again to get an idea what Anthony might say about such. His autobiogtaphy does not contain a lot of technical details but it gives a rather good picture about the guy himself. As it is an 80 year old book, I feel free to copy some images for thos who might want to see them.

 

It seems I have been very kind of Director Fokker in my previous assessment that in hos mind, the Dr.I was a failure, while being too mean to the Dr.I design itself.

 

So in a nutshell, Fokker on how his planes came to be up to WWI. There were some planes that he was proud of, the Dr.I being one of them_

Spoiler

evqn1RU.jpg

The planes shown above, the M.1 Spinne, the Eindecker, the D.II, the Dr.I, the D.VII and the D.VIII.

 

Fokkers personality was extremely important, being amitious to an extent only seen in places like Silicon Valley, a true "winner takes it all" mentality.

 

Fokker about Fokker: "I wanted to be a pilot. I got to be one. Then I wanted to be the best pilot. And I became the best. Then I wanted to produce aircraft, as flying was not enough. So I made aircraft. But they had to be the best aircraft. And they were the best aircraft. I was going to improve them until the entire competition was dead."

 

So, Director Fokker first set himself up a flight school.

Spoiler

h2NYfNr.jpg

 

He also invented the looping in Germany. Or art least brought that kind of marvel to that country.

Spoiler

OKNNDzC.jpg

 

Building aircraft on a larger scale came next. It is public knowledge that then and now and always, aircraft production is limited by the nuber of engines you can fetch in whatsoever way. In war and especially with somerthing as gruesome as "competition in the market" he fell short of what he could sell.

Spoiler

FTHPOlu.jpg

 

While at first he was comfortable selling "the best aircraft out there" that was somehow tolerable. But as soon as the French would use Nieuports using the 80 hp engine he was using on the Eindecker for their Baby or, much worse using the 110 hp version later on on their Biplanes (Fokker doesn't mention the Sopwith Tripe even once!) he quickly realized that he was in for significant troubles.

 

He did install the 160 hp (!) rotary version on Immelmanns Eindecker, along with 3 machineguns (the E.IV). However, once he was to present them at Johannistal and when he was firing these MG's, he quickly had to land and he did so at the remote part of the airfield. He almost shot off his propeller and he didn't want the IdFlieg to see that. While working to mend the issue. Fokker said it was bad enogh that he thought that was it when it happened. But Immelmann died with such an aircraft soon later on and Fokker knew that was it for that aircraft. It war more than just troublesome, but outwardly dangerous.

 

He knew he needed something better. A lot better. And for that he wanted the 160 hp engine from Mercedes. Alas, competition. And they were as evil as he was in their way of conducting business. They made sure Fokker would not get a single of those prized engines, but they all went to Albatros, Pfalz etc. He, being a foreigner, still had the dutch passport and didn't follow orders to become naturalized suspected broader schemes as well. Found out after the war that his banker invested a huge sum aroound 1916 in Royal Dutch Shell. That didn't help to make him popular (but boy, 500% return on investment after the war!) as well as the British offering a lot of money to Dutch contacts for Fokker to come to Britain.

 

He tried everything to beat Albatros. A total failure of a design, according to him. 'cos they shed wings. You dive, wing gone. Wrong construction, even in the D.Va. While spitting at his competition, he came up with an alternative, the D.I.  He had a "the better airframe", and all he needed was the proized Mercedes engine. But no way. To enter athe compeition that Albatros was to win, he used a 140 hp engine, that he found somewhere. The result was the D.I

Spoiler

 Fokker_D.I_151.16.jpg

 

It was clear that with 140 hp the Albatros would be better performing and of course. Nobody would listen to him saying "with the Mercedes engine, this plane would be much better!"

 

Times were getting tough for Anthony. By now, he had an aircraft company that made a lot of money, by now with the production of a lot of trainer planes. He even owned a factory that was producing 110 hp rotaries. But all that was recipie for disaster. Then, as now, if you want to kill an aviation company, set it on large orders of contract building. In a very short time, you lost  the ability to design competitive aircraft. As soon as the war was over, or for some other reasons, there is suddenly less demand, you are stuck with empty factories an no knowledge how to efficiently come up with new designs and you're bankrupt at once.

 

In the thrities and fourties, it would be Junkers playing that game to dominate the aircraft industry and with the notable exceptions of Focke Wulf and Messerschmidt, both equally connected and ready to play hardball, they were extremely successful and grew from being insignificant to the main player besides Kurt and Willy.

 

Fokker knew he was very soon very fokked if he didn't win a design contest very shortly. His first solution to the predicament of only having a weak, outdated engine, was make the best airframe. No stupid laundry between the wings, all streamlined. Anyone know how that type was called? Fokker doesn't mention.

Spoiler

e4SKAex.jpg

 

It was a disaster. At Johannistahl, IdFlieg wouldn't even look at that aircraft with their a**. And when they did, they did so with outright hostility. That was not the propper Germany way to do things, and they wouldn't buy an aircraft that didn't really have its wings attached. Back to the drawing board then.

 

Now, Anthony really needed a success or else. TRIPLANE! Still being limited with the engines, he said he placed everything on one card. That is maneuvrability and climb. Being higher than the other won a fight and being able to outmaneuver the other "kept you alive for the 5 to 10 minutes a common fight lasted". The Triplane did just that. He gave it a fine pitched propeller and added as little weight as possible. Like that, the aircraft did what it was supposed to do, and Fokker was very surprised in how well some pilots would do.

 

It was a sale. It also helped rubbing elbows with Richthofen etc. to put some pressure on the chairbones. Adding outward struts helped convincing people that the wings would hold in place.

 

Now, what did Fokker think of the Dr.I? First, he was impressed by the success of some, notably Voss. But he would then go on by stating that the main success of the Dr.I was merely the inability of the enemy to understand the aircraft. He deemed even the Camel being faster. All Entente planes also had also significantly higher endurance. He on purpose gave the Dr.I only a cup full of fuel to make it light for the sake of performance. But Fokker though if the enemy would just stalk the Dr.I and position themselves, waiting out the right moment when the Fokker is running out of fuel and take him on then. Fokker though that the Dr.I could never force an encounter over an enemy that was aware of him.

 

Thus, to anwer the OP's question, Fokker explicitly thinks that the Camel should chew up and spit out the Dr.I.

 

The main upside was that the success with the Dr.I enabled him to fetch the 160 hp inline Mercedes hat he designed the D.VII for, a far better aircraft in his mind. Later, there was the opportunity to fetch some few BMW engines that were more powerful, but the D.VII was good to an extent that he considered for some time not improving it further, as he deemed it already so much better than the rest.

 

The Dr.I done right according to Fokker came in the guise of the D.VIII. Fokker knew that all those 3 wings were problematic in terms of performance. But by just fitting one parasol, the "Fokker thick wing", to that airframe would produce a much better aircraft. And he also could make further use of all those 110 hp (how he referred to them) Oberursels. There were wing problems also there, but he though that those were to reinforcements mandated by the IdFlieg which caused wing twist under load and this uneven load would lead to break up of the wings.


 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J2_Trupobaw said:

Fokker is very unreliable source of information about Fokker...

Every page a salesman...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Not best source about Garros either, btw ;).

Same about Thomas Sopwith I presume. But since i wrote was most likely his oppinion on the OT's question, I'd take that as such. An Fokker had plenty of oppinion ;)

 

Share this post


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

"Substantially better aspect ratio"  I calculate the Dr.1 aspect ratio (it is per wing, not per wing set) at 8.7 for the top wing (which includes ailerons in the length, but shouldn't for 100% accuracy), 7.3 for the middle wing, and 7.1 for the bottom wing.  For the Camel, I calculate 6.9 for the top and bottom wing each.  Aspect ratio is span^2/wing area, BUT it can only be computed for one wing at a time, and then averaged.

 

I get a substantially lower aspect ratio for Dr1 than that: Maybe you based calculation on the net wing area excluding the part in the fuselage? In that case you will get a higher number but for aerodynamic calculations you should include the wing area in fuselage if you use span squared/wing area. However, since both the Camel and Dr1 have fairly rectangular wings you can instead calculate using wingspan/chord in which case you will get a substantially lower number: I would say the Dr1 has an average physical aspect ratio (middle wing) of around 5.6 (I would not include aileron horns on upper wing in span based calculation) and the Camel 6.2.

 

8 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I don't see how you come up with the following:

"Camel has a higher power to weight ratio"  The Dr.1 has the equivalent of the Rhone 9Jb which is a 120 hp engine (slightly in excess of that) which is within a few HP of the 130 Clerget.  If the Camel weighs 660 Kg as you have stated above, and the Dr1 weighs 575 kg, there is a clear power to weight advantage for the Dr.1.  Quick number crunching shows 660/127 hp = 5.19 kg/hp for Camel and 575/127 = 4.5 kg/hp Dr.1.  Only with the longstroke 130 Clerget at 148 hp does the Camel show comparable powere to weight 660/148=4.45 kg/hp.

 

Fair point: My first assessment was based on the designated power on paper of 110 hp for Oberursel and 130 hp for the Clerget but I have come to understand that they were actually closer together in what they actually produced and with that in mind it looks like the Dr1 comes out on top there.

 

8 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The way I have been calculating drag (I havent done it for the camel, because I don't know the gap between the wings) is using Max Munk's biplane interference factor.  This takes into account differences wing gap and span on a BIPLANE (not, that doesn't say triplane).  It plays a role in the drag equation by altering the aspect ratio.  

 

For both the Triplane and Camel I can only guess at this point, since I don't have accurate data for the Camel wing gap, and the equation was designed for a triplane configuration.  

 

However, when it comes to the turn performance I think the figures speak against the Dr1: Given the ballpark figure of total drag at maximum lift that I calculated in a post above shows that roughly 75% is due to the induced drag and only about 10% due to wing profile drag, I have a hard time seeing that the Dr1 should be able to top the Camel since the Camel beats it both in terms of the physical aspect ratio at 6.2 to 5.6 and in addition, given that the spacing of the wings are much closer in the triplane leading to a larger degree of mutual interference (hence a lower "corrected" aspect ratio) as the Munk formula shows, albeit for a biplane.

 

BTW: when you say you can do a 360 degree turn in 8 s I assume that is the max momentaneous turn rate, i.e. with a speed loss? Roughly, what is the power and weight when you measured the turn and do you have an estimate for entry and exit speeds? The reason I’m curious about the details is that I plan to model the Camel and Dr1 in C++ so this type of indata would be very good indeed. ;)

 

Correction: Looks like the German 1917 Dr1 drawing I used was not to scale: Looks like both the Camel and Dr1 had an aspect ratio of around 6.2.

Edited by Holtzauge
Wrong drawing used as base for Dr1

Share this post


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

The reason I’m curious about the details is that I plan to model the Camel and Dr1 in C++ so this type of indata would be very good indeed. ;)

Oh, please! :)

 

Share this post


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

Oh, please! :)

 

 

Is that like: Oh please yes!

Or is it.........

tenor.gif.13920c917b6ba2c4fc24b26d03e1bff6.gif

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Is that like: Oh please yes! 

Or is it.........

tenor.gif.13920c917b6ba2c4fc24b26d03e1bff6.gif

:lol:

Pretty please with sugar on top? Please enough?

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info. By specifications, the Clerget 9B can work at 1400rpm, as apparently most of these rotaries can. An example is the D8 tested at McCook Field in 1921, which made her speed run at sea level at 1390rpm (Oberursel 110), reaching 185km/h, wich is on par with our D8 in ROF (183km/h). The French article Moteurs de légende – Clerget 130 ch (Gérard Hartmann) rates the 9B at a temporary regime of 1400rpm.

 

I curious to test the new Camel climb.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You tease!

Hehe just two weeks , that nothing really and epic fight will begin 😄

Share this post


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

Hehe just two weeks , that nothing really and epic fight will begin 😄

I can't wait to have those epic fights on the FC sector on Berloga! That should give some life to that corner of the map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Camel is faster and seems to be able to out-turn the Dr.I, so, it doesn't look good for Team Fokker Triplane, if I may say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 7:13 AM, Champagne said:

The Camel is faster and seems to be able to out-turn the Dr.I, so, it doesn't look good for Team Fokker Triplane, if I may say.

 

...which would continue the ever-old "Camel-was-SUPER-great!"-crapp. What a pity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 7:13 AM, Champagne said:

The Camel is faster and seems to be able to out-turn the Dr.I, so, it doesn't look good for Team Fokker Triplane, if I may say.

Yes it is faster. But. No. Just no.

 

Unless the Camel uses the better climb turning left, It cannot reliably outturn the Dr.I in a Camel. It can only do so starting from higher altitude at higher flight speeds. You either have this vertical separation or you will have to work for it. Turning level in the tightest turn, the Camel will bleed speed such that it will almost become unflyable, while the Dr.I is much better at slow speed turns.

 

The Dr.I is far from being a victim in a close in fight. When it gets some of its power back, I’d sax it will be much easier to frag Camels than vice versa. Now it is just that a good pilot can put himself into a position of advantage from where he can control and win the fight.

 

But it is of note that if tight turn slow turning is your thing, also well flown fast SPAD will be able to turn into you. Stall speed turns are not a good position to find yourself in. The SPAD can even beat the Camel at its own game.

 

Speed really makes all the difference in the world in BoX, much in contrast to RoF. Old gripes don‘t apply anymore like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is going to be turn fighting DR1's when you have a 25 kph speed advantage?  Why even give that opportunity?

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


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

The Dr.I is far from being a victim in a close in fight.

 

That's not what I'm seeing when I fly the Camel. And don't forget that the Camel in Berloga was with 100% fuel, which is much more than the others, especially regarding endurance, when it has more than twice the endurance of other planes.

 

I've been away with work, but you have to fly a couple months in servers with unlocks and people flying with the usual endurance for turnfighters. Then you can say that the Dr.1 turns tighter, if it really does (I have no idea), especially in a sustained turn at deck level, when things generally get ugly for the one with a wide turn ratio.

 

You also have to take into account that who is flying those planes. Edit*, and hrafnkolbrandr made an unquestionable point. You can't argue with that. And all this talk makes us forget that one plane is nerfed and the other was fully unerfed. Just to compare the two is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

Who the fuck is going to be turn fighting DR1's when you have a 25 kph speed advantage?  Why even give that opportunity?

You be surprised how many do. Poor them.

 

 

14 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

That's not what I'm seeing when I fly the Camel.

Because you fly the Camel ‚above average‘. ;)

 

My point was that, nerfed or nor, the Dr.I has better tight turning potential than the Camel. This simply because the Camel with its thin wing sooner reaches a speed slow enough where it is not efficient enough.

 

It is a nice property of BoX (as opposed to RoF) that even in „über“ configuration, it is easy to bleed all energy in tightest turns. This is someting almost entirely absent in RoF and made the both Dr.I and Camel ridiculous propositions and „the patch“ mainly mended that.

 

That speed is less an issue for the Christen Eagle like performance you can see now in BoX, where the „fast“ Camel is still questionably performing to fight a (well flown) SPAD (or maybe D.VII). This because once you turn tight enough for your opponent not being able to follow you, you‘re already sufficiently slow to allow your adversary separation despite only 25 km/h or so speed advantage. In RoF this did not happen and you could always turn opon anyone and run him down with accurate gun fire.

 

Sub par pilots are always easy to shoot down. Works inthe Pfalz remarkably well too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to fly more the Camel, because right now I can't say one or the other turns tighter. It depends on fuel, player, ammo, how at ease they are with the planes and such. With time, when people start to specialize themselves like in ROF, when we have people who only fly one plane, we can have a better idea. But at the moment to make any comparison is kind of sweeping the dirt (nerfing) under the rug. Make people think they were supposed to be like that. Chill might surprise us all though. But at least with the Dr.1 data we can have an idea on the Camel.

Share this post


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

I need to fly more the Camel, because right now I can't say one or the other turns tighter. It depends on fuel, player, ammo, how at ease they are with the planes and such. With time, when people start to specialize themselves like in ROF, when we have people who only fly one plane, we can have a better idea. But at the moment to make any comparison is kind of sweeping the dirt (nerfing) under the rug. Make people think they were supposed to be like that. Chill might surprise us all though. But at least with the Dr.1 data we can have an idea on the Camel.

 

I don‘t think one should put too much into what is right now. Latest statement I remember from Gav is that the Dr.I gets reverted such as the Camel is now. Why things were made was also said and even substanciated with numbers. I guess we can close that book. Well, I hope it at least.

 

And fact is that the Camel, formerly known to make any plane redundant but the Dr.I, does not do that anymore, despite its considerable speed compared to „patched“. I feel we have really a fresh start here with FC, and a good one as far as I can see.

 

I‘ve done some flying with the current FC planes in MP against people that know what they are doing. Even at reduced loadouts, the Camel simply does not readily outturn the Dr.I. To the left, on a level turn it does lose against the current Dr.I very clearly. A Camel going left and not climbing is yours flying a Dr.I. Simple as that. As both planes slow down in the tight turn, the Camel much sooner is slow enough that rudder (and consequently induced roll) input required to offset gyro is such that it exceeds aileron control. Adverse yaw is such that you’re hitting the breaks and you’re spinning out if the other didn’t finish the Camel already. In reduced loadouts as well, as tne Dr.I can run on fumes too. The Dr.I can be controlled in much slower turns without induced roll and adverse yaw put an end to flight.

 

As soon as the aircraft get speed, turn is surprisingly close amongst all aircraft, even the SPAD and most certainly the Pfalz to the point where initial speed in many cases determine the winner of the fight. The Dr.I is holding best cards in defensive against such an attack, as it can fly that bloody slow to force overshoot sometimes before the other guy could turn into you (Don’t count on that.) Still, you‘re in a miserable situation, hoping the other guy slows enough for you to get a shot at him.

 

The only sure way for the Camel to beat the Dr.I is entering the fight at higher energy and maintain that energy. Once it becomes the dance of Kois while feeding, you‘ll only survive that in the Camel vs the Dr.I match if the other is letting you live. Simple as that.

 

Even when the Dr.I gets back to ~180 km/h speed (I guess that’s where it should be?) it‘s main trick will be to outclimb the other guy in a close fight and use this hight to come in for the kill, same as the Camel is doing now. Having better ailerons, it might be even more dangerous in that than the Camel pulling exactly that trick on anyone stupid enough allowing a close in fight in the first place.

 

Both Camel and Dr.I are great to make a lot of holes in a lot of aircraft in a furball, but against competent and faster 1918 adversaries up there, they will not bring you home.

 

In this sense, I think we are getting a really good productwith FC.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't buy into that and I haven't seen any good Camel pilots around in FC (for me, on the missions that I have flown), or at least none that could milk what the plane has to offer, which is a lot (and I mean a lot). Most of the proven veterans are still flying ROF or are absent for years, some of them perhaps waiting for the map? So the sample we have here is bits and pieces mended together. Perhaps when the D7 and Dolphin arrives and the servers settle for good and are listed on il2.flying-barans.ru/ we can have a mature crowd to sample performance.

 

And who is Gav? Reverted? Could you elaborate?

Share this post


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

And who is Gav? Reverted? Could you elaborate?

Sorry, I meant @AnPetrovich, not Gavrick. My bad. But we have that from the devs side. I expect the Dr.I to be „de-patched“ with coming updates.

 

As things are now, I doubt that subtle differences in turn speed (at any fuel loads) that would really determine a specific advantage to define the outcome of a fight. Fights usually are won or lost way before you did 5 full circles or so.

 

I also think fuel layouts matter less now in FC because of the energy bleed in the turn, where after 2 or 3 turns latest you are slow enough that you are flying at max AoA. The Camel hits that before the Dr.I, basically offsetting his higher power. This happens at all fuel loads. Both planes do have a sweet spot though where you can „park“ them (control whise) to substain tightest turn, but any maneuvering is likely to result in a loss of control and spinning out. In other words, not useful in combat unless fighting someone that doesn‘t know what he is doing. For the Camel, you have to keep in mind that it gets more stable in the pitch axis with less weight in the back working against it being agile. The Dr.I doesn‘t face that trade off. It just makes it impossible to fly a meaningful mission if you start with an empty tank.

 

In RoF, the pre patch Camel and the pre patch Dr.I made it easy for almost anyone that passed the test of finding the ‚e‘ key to turn the tables in a fight. Now, it is more like the better pilot wins. The problem was never that the best pilot can turn into you and win the fight. The problem was that any fart would win the fight by just using one of these aircraft.

 

When I said I was impressed about the SPADs turning abilities now, I have to say that it was Waggas that was diving on me (in the Dr.I, max elevator horizontal right turn) and with that speed stating a spiral to turn with me. With white contrails, he was rapidly closing and to my surprise he was gaining angles such that he could make holes in my tail. He must have gained almost a quater turn in my full turn.

 

Bottom line, FC is drastically different from RoF and you should not be surprised seeing better pilots gaining angles on you in „lesser“ aircraft. Before anyone is doing tests of how long it takes for a certain aircraft to fly a full circle, you should make these tests with different speeds entering the maneuver. There will be surprising results.

 

I see the key to success in FC combat to learn the max. AoA of each aircraft (sort of a min. permissible airspeed) where your aircraft doesn‘t strart to bleed energy excessively. The Camel was always (and still is) a great energy retainer. You enter a fight at higher speeds and as long as you maintain that speed you can beat anying/anyone. If you are too hamfisted on the elevator, the Dr.I will have you for breakfast. At any fuel settings.

 

In this sense, the Pfalz D.III is the best turner so far, as you can dive that one vertically for 1 km and then pull it into a blackout turn pulling full elevator. Nothing can follow that.

 

But if it comes to sustained turns, my bets are on a „powered up“ Dr.I. Both ways around.

 

And if you are interessted in the last % of performance that „the greatest pilot“ can achieve, my bets are that you will not reproduce that turn as initial conditions are hard to reproduce. In RoF they are important. In FC, they make all the difference in the world.

 

This again, my 2 Cents, YMMV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fighting Fokker Dr.I was described by opponents as performing "manoeuvres which appeared like aerobatics".
(Sorry, can't recall the source anymore)

The Fokker pilot wouldn't only just fly horizontal turns, but also vertical tight elliptical half or full loops, and mix all this -

it could be all over any enemy fighter in a turn fight.

From all I know, it would have been quite suicidal to try a turn fight alone against a Fokker Dreidecker expert.

 

For all who never read about it or saw any documentation on Werner Voss' last fight against six S.E.5a from 56 Sqdn,
as reported by Rhys-Davids and McCudden:

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


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

Sorry, I meant @AnPetrovich, not Gavrick. My bad. But we have that from the devs side. I expect the Dr.I to be „de-patched“ with coming updates.

 

He was quick to roll back the Pfalz, even though everyone was against it. He could have done the same with the Dr.1, because those roll backs seems to be easy apparently. He didn't. I won't even guess why. So this might be it, and I'm already working on a personal Camel skin (joking).

Share this post


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

 

He was quick to roll back the Pfalz, even though everyone was against it. He could have done the same with the Dr.1, because those roll backs seems to be easy apparently. He didn't. I won't even guess why. So this might be it, and I'm already working on a personal Camel skin (joking).

 

He didn’t “roll back” anything.  There was a bug in the FM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

He didn’t “roll back” anything.  There was a bug in the FM.

 

Bender pointed it out after which finding himself very sorry LOL

Remember?

Next Petrovich found the code bug putting it on the next update list.

So maybe he found himself also rechecking the DR1 code during his holidays, imagine ...

Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! All

 

I like the charts posted bu Holtzauge.   I noticed that the speed for the Dr.1 was at 13120 ft.   Is there a reference for the speed at ground level?  It should be faster at ground or sea level?

 

 

I ask because our Dr.1 barely does  101 mph  - 162 m/sec at ground level.  

Share this post


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

 

Bender pointed it out after which finding himself very sorry LOL

Remember?

Next Petrovich found the code bug putting it on the next update list.

So maybe he found himself also rechecking the DR1 code during his holidays, imagine ...

 

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

 

*disclaimer - the numbers might vary in 1km/h in-game or I would have to redo everything again, which at this point I have no interest on. You could replicate the tests around 10-15m at sea level (more than enough room for the wing span thing) and 15ºC and 760Mmhg (ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere).

 

Spad 13: 214km/h in ROF and 218km/h in BOX, which is a BOX increse in speed of 1,8%

Fokker Dr.1: 165km/h in ROF and 168km/h in BOX, which is a BOX increse in speed of 1,8%

Sopwith Camel that was [officially] rolled back to pre-nerfing: 190km/h in ROF and 194km/h in BOX, which is a BOX increse in speed of 2.1%.

 

So these planes are gaining on average 1.9% when ported to BOX. It might have to do with the engine, atmospheric simulation. Some of them are losing the same amount of RPM, as the Spad and Dr.1 IIRC. The Camel for some reason gained some RPM, which might indicates the slightly better ratio of increase when ported to BOX.

 

So now let's take a look at the Pfalz.

 

Pfalz pre-fix of 2014 - 168kmh at sea level in ROF. If they ported that way to BOX, taking into account the 1.9% increase in average, it should be around 171km/h, correct?
 

Pfalz post-fix of 2014 - 175km/h at sea level in ROF. And it was ported to BOX with the speed of 178km/h at sea level (gain of 1.7%).

Then it was fixed of a bug and is now at 171kmh, which is the same number if they had used the pre-fixed Pfalz from ROF before.

 

Which are the odds? So there is data indicating that the plane might have been rolled back to pre-2014 standards and it was just a miscommunication (he might have been with a lot of numbers, data and information in his head and it is overwhelming sometimes), and you have to remember Petrovich saying: "We conscious come back to FM before the update of RoF 1.034 (December 2014), where the characteristics of a number of planes were changed for the "game balance" because of under the pressure of players on the forums. We don’t want to repeat such mistakes anymore, therefore, performances of all airplanes in the Flying Circus are preserved as they were in reality".

 

Which makes me wonder what comes next and what fate awaits the Dr.1. And honestly, what is important is the performance.

 

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

 

Edit: I was finding the Spad speed a bit off in BOX and redid a run and reached 218km/h twice. So I rewrote her numbers (basically the same of the Dr.1 and Pfalz) and changed the overall percentage average.

Edited by SeaW0lf

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...