Easy Camel?

[HagarTheHorrible]

About gyroscopic forces:-     According to Murrin and King, often-repeated tales about tricky aircraft handling due to the gyroscopic effects of rotating engines—that the spinning mass of the engine made for very quick turns to the right and slow turns to the left—are exaggerated. “When you hear the stories about rotary engines being hard to fly, the problem was with the inexperienced people flying them,” explained King. “When I made my first flight in a rotary-powered aircraft, I landed and then realized that I hadn’t noticed any gyroscopic effects. An experienced pilot automatically compensates for those things. Turns to the right might be a little quicker, but that is because the rotary engine tends to pull the nose down [in that direction], and you make a quicker descending turn than you make a climbing turn.”

Murrin agreed: “There are small gyroscopic effects but nothing close to the exaggerated tales often repeated in print and in documentaries. You adjust for them much the same way you would if you were flying in mildly gusty conditions. The torque reactions are most notable during takeoff and gliding in for landing when ‘blipping’ the engine.”

Other factors had a more pronounced effect on aircraft handling. King noted that all the early rotary-powered planes had a lot of adverse yaw (the tendency of the plane’s nose to point in the opposite direction of a bank when starting a turn), and all were tail-heavy, leading to a certain amount of instability in their handling.

 

From this article       the-truth-about-rotaries

 

[76SQN-FatherTed]

So, thinking through the history of the Camel's representations in RoF and FC, it seems that its unusual combination of rotary power-plant and short moment about the CoG make it very hard to model within the Digital Nature engine. We either have something which turns "as expected", but is "too fast", or something that is "the right speed" but can't climb  "as expected".  So, in order for the rest of the WW1 planeset to have reasonable FMs we have to accept that the Camel will not.

 

Just a theory.

[unreasonable]

5 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

So, thinking through the history of the Camel's representations in RoF and FC, it seems that its unusual combination of rotary power-plant and short moment about the CoG make it very hard to model within the Digital Nature engine. We either have something which turns "as expected", but is "too fast", or something that is "the right speed" but can't climb  "as expected".  So, in order for the rest of the WW1 planeset to have reasonable FMs we have to accept that the Camel will not.

 

Just a theory.

 

Not one to which I subscribe at all.  There is nothing about the Camel that should make it any harder to model accurately than any other rotary: of which RoF had several. 

 

The Camel's FM seems fine to me: the only issue I had with it was that after flying the Dr.1 the precessional effect seemed muted by comparison. But as pointed out by others it is there and also, as others have given evidence in this thread, the effect in real flying aircraft is mild. Similarly the yaw stability may be greater than expected and adverse yaw somewhat less: but this appears to be true of all the BoX aircraft and seems to be a function of the engine in it's current state, not of the Camel FM as such.

 

The problem is that certain people thought the RoF Camel was "too fast" not because of any test data source but because they read pilot anecdotes - for instance of Albatross diving away from Camels - and assumed that this meant that Albatross had to have had a much higher level top speed than Camels. Which does not follow at all: they are about 50% heavier, so of course they have some advantage in diving away. The propaganda that led to the RoF Camel nerfing was led by people motivated by the desire to achieve balancing for MP: and to hell with the interests of the majority of SP RoF owners who just wanted to have the most accurate possible simulation of each aircraft. 

I am extremely glad that the developers have concluded that their capitulation to the balance lobby was a mistake and will not be repeated.

 

[Chill31]

I just had a spin in the FC Camel, and based on the data I found and posted in this thread, I think it is reasonable at this point.  Bear in mind, I have not flown a Camel, and though I know several people who have (even with Clerget engines), very few people who fly these planes are as mindful of the handling characteristics as you and I would like them to be.  Most people don't take their Camel upside down, and those who do, can't tell you how long it takes to roll or loop or turn 360 degrees in a circle.

 

The best data we have to go on is that of Javier Arango.  

 

Roll

I did a left roll, and it took about 8 seconds.  This seems to match what Javier discovered in his flight tests.  The most noticeable feature missing was adverse yaw.  I could roll left and right with basically no rudder input.  Given what Javier said in his report, it should be much more pronounced.  I suspect it has too much yaw stability, since I noticed the adverse yaw come in slightly, but then the nose would start tracking quickly in the correct direction.  In Roll, I think the rate is good, but the adverse yaw is too little.

 

Pitch

It seemed very sensitive in pitch, and my understanding is that it was that way.  I performed a loop in about 8 seconds which is on par with the Dr.I, so I thought that was very reasonable.  It is possible to snap roll (despite the word "roll" a snap roll is performed using pitch and yaw to cause the airplane to roll)  the Camel, and it seems that it was possible to do that in the real plane.  In Pitch, it seemed to have a believable FM given the information I've read and heard about it.  

 

Yaw

This airplane is reported to be very unstable in yaw by everyone I've talked to about the airplane.  Javier's notes also strongly suggest that it is happy to fly sideways, just as the Fokker Dr. I does.  With that in mind, I felt like it was too stable.  That may be a byproduct of too little adverse yaw, however.

 

Gyroscopic

I noticed that the effect was more pronounced when I pitched down vs when I pitched up.  I'm not really sure why that would be the case unless it was just my perception.  Did anyone else see that?  

 

Spins

The Camel does still spin readily, and right hand spins are very easy to recover while left hand spins need the following technique: Aft stick, right rudder.  When rotation stops, forward stick to fly away.

 

Speed

I've seen the reports here of 193 kmh for the Camel, and did not test it myself.  That is 120 mph for the Camel.  That seems pretty fast...I wish Javier had done some speed tests!

 

Overall, it is reasonable.  While I don't feel convinced I'm flying a Camel as I do when I fly the Dr.I, it has many elements closely related to what I understand the Camel to be.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

I suspect it has too much yaw stability,

My impressions are exactly the same. That is the main discrepany I found from flight tests. Once it is crabwise, if you just keep rudder centered, it sould go on crabwise, even at steep angles.

 

It might me that the little rudder and is not as efficient as it could be due to turbulences from the pilot etc in fron of it. The rudder has hardly any unobstructed airflow. But just guessing here. 

 

But I also feel that the precession is noticed more on pushing than on pulling. Which is weird. 

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Tend to agree about yaw stability.  Slightly too stable and not enough adverse yaw from the " barn door" ailerons. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[E_Davjack]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

 

 

The best data we have to go on is that of Javier Arango.  

 

 

 

 

 

RIP, Mr Arango.  There is a reason that the aviators flying authentic engine WWI aircraft fly conservatively.  They were/are legitimately dangerous machines. 

[Reflected]

OK. No matter how slow and tight I tried to turn right, I only needed a touch of left rudder. If I gave any more, the plane flipped to the left. It's not the Camel every book is talking about.

[unreasonable]

18 minutes ago, Reflected said:

OK. No matter how slow and tight I tried to turn right, I only needed a touch of left rudder. If I gave any more, the plane flipped to the left. It's not the Camel every book is talking about.

 

That was my experience in FC-Camel as well: which I why I had to go and look carefully at the compass while making pitch changes to see the precession.  But if you look at Hagar's post above linking to the article you will see current Camel pilots effectively saying that "every book" is wrong and the effect really is quite subtle. Not surprising that books give an exaggerated picture sometimes when they have to express themselves in simple qualitative prose making sharp distinctions for the general reader to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reflected]

I see. Interesting article, some food for though.

[EAF19_Marsh]

It does seem very easy to fly, though at low speed aileron input seemed to make the nose wander a little - not exactly adverse yaw but I found myself kicking in some rudder to get the nose where I wanted it. Also does not like rolling to port as much.

 

Not sure how accurate this is, never have flown a rotary.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

4 hours ago, Reflected said:

OK. No matter how slow and tight I tried to turn right, I only needed a touch of left rudder. If I gave any more, the plane flipped to the left. It's not the Camel every book is talking about.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong because I haven't experienced any problems.  My foremost and main control for turning is the rudder, ailerons are for fine tuning.  I do it that way because, if I remember correctly, that's what  Javier Arango said was the correct/best way.

Edited November 23, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[SP1969]

My impression is that the FC Camel 'feels' too docile.

 

I switched in and out of FC and RoF a few times last night ( which made me realise that FC, when it is a little more 'all of a piece' is going to be bloody fantastic fun ) and the RoF Camel, although too slow ( IN MY OPINION ONLY - I'm not going there for the obvious reasons ) 'feels' more sensitive to ham- fisted input and behaves much as described in most of the literature I have read on the real aeroplane's behaviour. 

 

The RoF Camel will kill you if it can, especially with a heavy fuel load, the FC Camel might let you go home in one piece with only mild to moderate trouser staining if you treat it badly.

 

I watched with extreme interest the lecture on Camel behaviour presented by the late Javier Arango linked by SeaSerpent and Hagar over on Champagne's thread and his comments ( what an engaging man he was, his death is such a shame ) and was playing around with the machines in both RoF and FC trying to replicate his findings in the real thing. 

 

My conclusions very much agree with the impressions noted by Chill31, ZachariasX and the OP.

 

I do wonder about the effect of input device.

 

I use an X52 Pro stick and throttle and Saitek pedals and one of the things I feel about the BoX engine is that everything feels a little less 'connected' than RoF when using this hardware.

 

Having previously only had access to the Second World War aeroplanes, I had put this 'feeling' down to the more advanced nature of the aircraft themselves, but having the opportunity to directly compare the Camel, Dr1, Pfalz and Spad within the two environments, I am starting to wonder.

 

I dislike using the word 'feeling', but I can't think of a better way to describe what is happening here.

 

Equally, I am reluctant to describe the FM in either game as 'right' or 'wrong'.

 

I have never flown any of these aircraft for real, although I would be perfectly willing to donate one shrivelled port side testicle to the charity of your choice in exchange for the opportunity to do so, and so have no first hand experience with which to compare, only anecdotal evidence as to how these aeroplanes 'ought' to behave.

 

Purely based on second hand evidence, it seems to me that the RoF Camel behaves ( with the exception of the speed, post nerf ) more as one would 'expect' a Camel to behave and the FC Camel 'seems' to not as effectively replicate the hypersensitive handling characteristics that second hand evidence would suggest were present in the real aeroplane, especially in terms of the gyroscopic effect of the engine and of the rudder surfaces. 

 

I'm very much looking forward to the SE5a arriving in game in order to see whether that aeroplane's docility will 'feel' overstated in the same way.  

 

If it does, I'm going to chalk the 'feeling' that the FC Camel is too stable down to the FC game engine, stop worrying about it and get on with doing what the developers intended me to do - have a lot of fun playing their game.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by SP1969
Syntactical error

[US103_Baer]

Javier Arango's presentation was very revealing. Imho the FC Camel flight characteristics are closer to his description and data. We may have gotten used to the RoF Camel, but that doesn't make it right.

 

FC is a new Sim and overall I'm really liking the smoother handling and lower energy retention I experience. Almost like the air is a slightly thicker, more fluid environment compared to RoF.

 

Combined with ever improving damage models, graphics and drive for data-driven realism, I like where this is heading. I know there's a big thing about top speeds at sea level, but I'm much more interested in speed at various altitudes, climb and dive speeds and energy retention in practice and at the edge of flight envelope.

 

[SP1969]

Baer,

 

"Almost like the air is a slightly thicker, more fluid environment compared to RoF."

 

Perfectly expressed, Sir.

[ZachariasX]

Regarding the Camel being "easy", I had now a couple of dogfights on Berloga. In the Dr.I it is rather straight forward to shoot down Camels, even when they come in pairs. If the Camel jockey does need to know how to exploit the left hand climbing turn but tries the "I follow you with my nose to whatever ends", well, this is gona be his end. The only unsure thing is whether he's gonna kill himself by spinning out in the turn or if he stays long enoght for you to shoot him. Even the Pfalz now can hold its own against a Camel that is doing just that. The magic of the Camel is that it can turn a low energy turn fight into an energy fight, whereas other planes need to separate first for doing just that. Anyone not understanding that will be prey to a good Central pilot.

 

For a good pilot however, the Camel for sure delivers an edge over both Dr.I (as it is now) and the Pfalz. And the Camel then is only easy because you are very good.  And then everything is easy. This is a market difference between pre-patch RoF and what we have now. The Camel with a good engine should by all means be the weapon of chioce for a close in fight, same as the Dr.I.

 

But the SPAD can beat the Camel at it's own game (if you havethe patience for that), at least when you are higher up and when there's more involved than just a 1 vs.1.

Edited December 8, 2018 by ZachariasX