Jump to content
Hellbender

Camel 195km/h at sea level + Pfalz slowed down to 171km/h [Done in 3.008]

Recommended Posts

Jump straight to the developer post which confirms the new figures for the Sopwith Camel:

 

 

 

Jump straight to the developer post which confirms that the current top speed of the Pfalz (177km/h) is too high and she will be slowed down to 171km/h:

 

 

 

From my very brief initial testing with no wind and no turbulence on the Kuban Summer map I could reach 186km/h at sea level in the Camel in autolevel.

 

This puts her in between the pre-update RoF Camel (190km/h at sea level) and the post-update Camel (167km/h at sea level), but far closer to pre-update.

 

Need to test the Dr.I again to get its figures too.

 

CDuCi1J.jpg

 

 

Edited by Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is not meant to incite or imply anything, in my very humble opinion at 185km/h ASL Camel matches my own sources from the Belgian Military Aviation, putting it on par with the Hanriot HD.1 and Nieuport 24 — all three 130hp machines. I'm also very happy to see a BMA skin added by default.

 

By comparison, the Dr.I under the same conditions at sea level is the exact same figure as RoF: 165km/h.

 

qtbaYcl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a last one before I have to go make dinner for my kids, the Pfalz D.IIIa sits at 174km/h under similar conditions, also close to identical to RoF.

 

D16x8ke.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a little odd is that the Specifications tab for the Camel just has a little text: it does not even state what engine type is fitted, let alone any performance figures. In contrast the Dr.1 has a fairly full set of data.

 

Is something wrong with my install or is that as intended?

Share this post


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

What is a little odd is that the Specifications tab for the Camel just has a little text: it does not even state what engine type is fitted, let alone any performance figures. In contrast the Dr.1 has a fairly full set of data.

 

Is something wrong with my install or is that as intended?

 

Nothing wrong with you install.

BTW I think someday when Mr. Petrovich would find some time Dr.1 would get FM revision based on what Chill provided and new video material showing elevator position in cruise speeds.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose having no data for comparison is one way of dealing with the Cameltroversy.  ;)  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only had a quick look at her, but I see no mention in-game of what engine it has or what performance it can achieve???

 

yes, obviously a good way to avoid controversy...but they will have to eventually let us know what "mystery" engine it has.  ☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly believe the figures are correct for a 130hp Clerget. The Dr.I is too slow, even with its 110hp Oberursel — we know that from Chill.

 

The Pfalz needs the Mercedes D.IIIaü overcompression field mod (which currently only exists on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp in RoF) to reach 200hp and somewhere close to 185km/h IAS at sea level.

 

As it stands with the current figures, I don’t expect Flying Circus multiplayer is going to take off just yet. Maybe without the Camel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should use some methodology.

 

I recommend doing the tests at the same 15ºC and 760Mmhg (ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere) at 100m on both Channel and Kuban maps (so that you can do it at sea level, over the ocean). In fact I think we could use it as a reference for us to compare data.

 

So I got (manual mixture):

 

Disclaimer - the Camel / Dr.1 tests at BOX were done quickly, so we might have a difference of 1km/h or 10rpms give or take. The ROF speed tests were done with a traveled distance of 75km divided by time of the run in seconds, and then I consider it to be more precise than air speed, even at sea level.  

 

Spad 13: 214km/h in ROF and 217km/h in BOX                                 BOX increse in speed of 1,4%
Fokker Dr.1: 165km/h in ROF and 168km/h in BOX                            BOX increse in speed of 1,8%
Sopwith Camel: 169kh/h in ROF and 193km/h in BOX                       BOX increse in speed of 14%

 

Then, if you look at the rpm:

 

Fokker Dr.1: 1320rpm in ROF (after the nerfing of 2014) and 1280rpm in BOX (in fact they nerfed it again).

Sopwith Camel: 1210rpm in ROF and 1420rpm in BOX (in fact they basically return it back to pre-nerfing state).

 

Regarding the Spad and Dr.1, you have to note that the increase in speed in BOX might be due to different physics and engine simulations. And the numbers are pretty similar.

 

Then when we see the Camel, you can note that it was basically unerfed. Which begs the question... Are they giving a pass on the Camel and nerfing the Dr.1 even further? Was the Dr.1 going over 168km/h at 1320rpm and they decided to nerf it again?

 

Because I have posted here a few times and it is common knowledge that these rotaries had a temporary max rpm of aproximately 1400rpm, both mentioned in the Oberursel manual and in studies of the Clerget 9b. The Fokker D.VIII tested at McCook Field in 1921 reached 1390rpm in his sea level run.

 

Does that mean that we will get a fix in the future to take the Dr.1 to reach 1400rpm as well? That's what I would expect, or else they are being bias.

 

I rather see them to throttle the Camel to original Tripehound standards, like 187km/h or so and keep the Dr.1 at 179km/h, which was what some people were asking back then. We will have Chill testing his Le Rhônes in a couple years, but then we should get the Camel tested with the same standards.

 

And until then the Camel will trounce the Dr.1? What a mess. If this is really true and the numbers translate in combat, I have no idea how they come to these decisions internally. Does not seem to make any sense.

 

I need to do some other tests to verify the data in this post and do some climbing runs to see how the Camel does now.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


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


Sopwith Camel: 169kh/h in ROF and 193km/h in BOX                       BOX increse in speed of 14%

 

When I  was testing Camel  got about ~ 185 kph @ 1400RPMs.  Mine was at 300 m, Kuban Summer.

Share this post


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

When I  was testing Camel  got about ~ 185 kph @ 1400RPMs.  Mine was at 300 m, Kuban Summer.

 

Sounds about right for how I tested it.

 

 

Trying out multiplayer tonight was a blast, though.

 

The Dr.I is hopelessly outclassed by the Camel, that much is certain. Apart from the 20km/h speed advantage, the Camel can straight up outturn it to the left and outclimb it in a right turn.  The Pfalz could hold its own by virtue of its amazing roll rate (scissors all day long), some prophanging antics (not as bad as the old Pfalzcopter) and the fact that it's built like a tank (it should be included with Tank Crew).  And then there's the parachute, which Central has but not Entente. Talk about a huge advantage right there in terms survivability.

 

That is, until you bail out and a certain Dr.I shoots you in your chute thinking you must be an "Entente parachute". 😂

 

 

I must say: dogfights are amazingly fun in Flying Circus. It's not the wingshedding tomfooleries from RoF, although that may come once the Albatros makes its entry. I even saw and caused a couple of flamers, ultra-rare nowadays in RoF. Speaking of which, the fact that you can bail out in an Entente plane and just fall to your death is a nice touch. Beats burning.

 

Only pity is the map, I can't wait to see the Western Front rendered here.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

When I  was testing Camel  got about ~ 185 kph @ 1400RPMs.  Mine was at 300 m, Kuban Summer.

 

All the maps on the BOX series have speed variations. The best way to do is to create a new mission, like the one I attached below. You just have to replace the plane for another (Dr.1, Spad), create the entity, set for player, start in air and set the postion of the plane at 100m and 270º direction.

 

Mine is at 15ºC and 760Mmhg (ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere). No wind, no turbulence.

 

Sopwith Camel sea level run.zip

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

That is, until you bail out and a certain Dr.I shoots you in your chute thinking you must be an "Entente parachute". 😂

 

Was testing :P 

Anyway you looked funny falling on buttocks and sitting there massage knees under baldachin hehe

 

image.png.24a6e0bbf599102078753f1e5e7ae369.png

Edited by 307_Tomcat
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

All the maps on the BOX series have speed variations. The best way to do is to create a new mission, like the one I attached below. You just have to replace the plane for another (Dr.1, Spad), create the entity, set for player, start in air and set the postion of the plane at 100m and 270º direction.

 

Mine is at 15ºC and 760Mmhg (ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere). No wind, no turbulence.

 

Sopwith Camel sea level run.zip

 

Really like the idea of everyone testing performance with the same mission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

Really like the idea of everyone testing performance with the same mission. 

 

Yup, I don't think the mission opens up with the standard 15ºC and 760Mmhg by chance. I'm no scollar on the subject, but the ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere seems to be the global standard. If this is it, everyone could use the same standard numbers every time they test something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Quick Mission Kuban Autumn map has 15ºC / 760 mmHg at sea level.

 

That is true. Thanks for the feedback. I could reach the same 193km/h on the Camel at 100m. I just think the mission editor makes it easier, because the mission is lighter, loads faster and perhaps will have a better performance with time constraint in some computers. You also start already at the level and position you need to be. In terms of methodology, it can't get any better, especially for climb runs for example.

 

But if the person is a random player that just wants to check / corroborate a given number, it is easier to just login on the quick mission. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot some Camels in quick missions, and they alyways exploded like a grenade. I couldn‘t manage that with any other planes. Flying the Camel, I also noted that you can bail out „the proper English way“. 

 

Seems we have a 1918 Camel and a 1917 Dr.I in the game. Also for the recent additions, I much prefer the hadling of the planes now in FC than in RoF.

 

But now we maybe need an AI that, at altitude, doesn‘t have the single solution for combat maneuvering in form of the following slpit-S: roll until inverted, remaining like this for about 1-2 seconds, then pull and fly straight level again. You catch anyone in the Dr.I like that.

 

Camel speeds I had up to 185 km/h, all on Kuban map so far (for prettyness sake).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I redid the missions both in ROF and in BOX to start at 10m (some planes might splash in the water at the start). The Camel gained 1km/h in BOX and reached 194km/h with mixture around 87-89%. In ROF it reaches 167km/h on the HUD, but my tests (75km run divided by time) it reaches 168.5km/h. But I admit that it is better to use the HUD in both stances to have a standard.

 

17 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Seems we have a 1918 Camel and a 1917 Dr.I in the game. 

 

It is worse than that. The Camel is almost 30km/h faster and has torque and rpm. The Dr.1 was further nerfed on its rpm. So you basically have a full power plane, which already had a speed and torque advantage in the past against a double nerfed plane that now is powered by an 80hp engine. The result is that you can toy with the Dr.1 like they are basically years apart. I still need to fly the Camel against Dr.1 veterans, but from what I saw today, it is absolutely laughable. 

 

I did not see much difference in handling and I have been flying the Camel a lot in ROF. Looks like the same bird, smooth as it was after the nerfing, but with her power back now.

 

185km/h? Manual mixture? Probably summer, right? Check the maps that we are using. Kuban Autumn on the quick mission seems to have the same performance of the tests. Also, let her run for a while so that the speed settles in the given mixture. Use time constraint to do that. After a few seconds it will settle at the final speed.

 

 

Missions attached below.

Sopwith Camel sea level run BOX 10m.zip

Sopwith Camel sea level run ROF 10m.zip

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


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

 

 

Seems we have a 1918 Camel and a 1917 Dr.I in the game. Also for the recent additions, I much prefer the hadling of the planes now in FC than in RoF.

 

 

I am not sure where this "1918 Camel" or "1917 Camel" idea came from but I wish people would stop it - it is nonsensical. The same applies for the Dr.1  The designs did not miraculously change on January the first 1918.  The only thing that changed was the engine, and that was not by date since apart from the Bentley engined variant - which was much more powerful - various engine types were used concurrently.

Share this post


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

 

I am not sure where this "1918 Camel" or "1917 Camel" idea came from but I wish people would stop it - it is nonsensical. The same applies for the Dr.1  The designs did not miraculously change on January the first 1918.  The only thing that changed was the engine, and that was not by date since apart from the Bentley engined variant - which was much more powerful - various engine types were used concurrently.

That is what I meant to say. But I have problem with alternative wordings.

Share this post


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

That is what I meant to say. But I have problem with alternative wordings.

 

Clerget130Camel - BentleyCamel - LeRhoneCamel etc?

 

Mind you the current NuCamel appears to be equipped with a radial engine of some kind as far as I can see: I am unable to detect any yaw on changing pitching, it is most unlike the Dr.1 in that respect.  

Share this post


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

Clerget130Camel - BentleyCamel - LeRhoneCamel etc?

Sort of that. But just obviously falsley(?) assuming engine power would get increased over the time they built the engines.

 

But it not my argument. I just meant that we seemingly have a very powerful Camel and a modestly powered Dr.I

 

What I would be more interested in are climb and speed charts for both Camel and Dr.I. The Dr.I should be markedly better, despire being slower. If the Camel can follow the Dr.I, then we indeed would have an issue here.

 

Until now, I just found it was easy to remain above the SPAD (just quick missions, I never fould a contender in MP :( ) in the Dr.I, so being slow is felt much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am not making any such assumption - except in the case of the Bentley which really was a lot more powerful.  I am simply asserting that this "19xx Camel" meme adds no explanatory value and actually is misleading: a Camel with a good engine in 1917 would perform better than one with a poor engine in 1918.

 

I too am waiting to see some speed/climb tests: but without knowing what the engine in the Camel is supposed to be how can we compare the FC results with any test data?  

Share this post


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

Because I have posted here a few times and it is common knowledge that these rotaries had a temporary max rpm of aproximately 1400rpm, both mentioned in the Oberursel manual and in studies of the Clerget 9b. The Fokker D.VIII tested at McCook Field in 1921 reached 1390rpm in his sea level run.

 

The key in resolving the Camel Conundrum and the Dreidecker Deception (gotta give em catchy names, make it stick) lies herein really.

 

These engines are all rated to run at around 1200-1300 RPM continuous power. But they can run at 1400 RPM for short burts. Call it emergency power.

 

The IL-2 engine already supports this kind of throttle behaviour, it's in WWII machines such as the eponymous IL-2 Sturmovik.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember, from flight test articles, that the DR1 has a very average climb performance.  Where do people think the "magic" comes from ?  Physics is physics there are no silver bullets.  The only way to have good climb performance is to have a good power to weight ratio, the higher the power the more brute force you can throw at the problem.  If the DR1 can appear to climb rapidly it is because it's design allows it to climb at a steeper angle than its contempories, which in my estimation, is a very valuable asset to have.  In a turning contest it allows you to stay above your opponents line of fire.

 

N.B,.  I don't really know what I'm talking about apart from what I've gleaned over the years from reading about aircraft. :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The only way to have good climb performance is to have a good power to weight ratio

The more power ypu have the faster you can go there, that is true.

 

BUT if you switch to a lower gear / fine prop, you can go steeper with the same power, although slower. And that was the trick of the DR.I. It was made a slower aircraft on purpose to give it a steep climb to win a maneuvering fight. Remember, all those aircraft are generally slow and they are not very aerodynamic, meaning added speed comes at a penatly of a lot of added power. For A SPAD with 250 hp to outclimb a Dr.I he must fly much faster, climbing much more shallow. But time to altitude will be better. But as soon as you are maneuvering, your speed will be bled off and the coarse prop will not be efficient for a steep climb, even though you have a lot more power. In that situation, the Dr.I should have no problem in staying above the faster SPAD.

 

Same as the Zero fighter had a phenomenal climb angle, but time to altitude was inferior to Lighning or Mustang.

 

When going slow, the Dr.I should outclimb anything. Conversely it will not be efficient in a shallow climb, as it would do that near max. airspeed, bleeding a lot of energy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The more power ypu have the faster you can go there, that is true.

 

BUT if you switch to a lower gear / fine prop, you can go steeper with the same power, although slower. And that was the trick of the DR.I. It was made a slower aircraft on purpose to give it a steep climb to win a maneuvering fight. Remember, all those aircraft are generally slow and they are not very aerodynamic, meaning added speed comes at a penatly of a lot of added power. For A SPAD with 250 hp to outclimb a Dr.I he must fly much faster, climbing much more shallow. But time to altitude will be better. But as soon as you are maneuvering, your speed will be bled off and the coarse prop will not be efficient for a steep climb, even though you have a lot more power. In that situation, the Dr.I should have no problem in staying above the faster SPAD.

 

Same as the Zero fighter had a phenomenal climb angle, but time to altitude was inferior to Lighning or Mustang.

 

When going slow, the Dr.I should outclimb anything. Conversely it will not be efficient in a shallow climb, as it would do that near max. airspeed, bleeding a lot of energy.

 

 

Exactly.  DR1 and Camel probably have similar time to altitude it's just that the DR1 can do it in a much shorter distance but at the cost of a slower forward airspeed.  Biplanes as a rule climb with less pitch up of the nose.  The Triplane must have been extraordinary, as they say, "like going up in a lift".

Share this post


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

Exactly.  DR1 and Camel probably have similar time to altitude it's just that the DR1 can do it in a much shorter distance but at the cost of a slower forward airspeed.  Biplanes as a rule climb with less pitch up of the nose.  The Triplane must have been extraordinary, as they say, "like going up in a lift".

I'd doubt that the Camel is as good as a climber as the DR.I, as the prop requires the Camel to fly faster. At this higher speed, the Camel will bleed more energy due to drag, making the Dr.I's net investment into climb probably higher.

 

Bouth planes being rather similar in terms of wing and weight, the prop makes a lot of difference. It is very obvious for instance in the Robin Remo towplane and the normal GA variant, the Dauphin. Besides windwo size, these are equal aircraft, but the Remo climbs like an elevator. You can really han it onto the prop. The Dauphin is considerably faster but you cannot even dream following the other in a climb, not "even time altitude".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

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.
The Dr.1 is also under my attention (I'm waiting for some data to clarify) and can be corrected soon.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear, thanks. Some questions have been raised about the lack of gyroscopic effect in the Camel though.

Edited by Klugermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good to hear, thanks Anton.

Are the devs also open to looking at the SPAD? 

There is very good data from a number of sources ( Bruce, Andrews, the French, NACA) showing a speed of 218kph at 2000m for the 220hp high compression engines. In FC i cant get the SPAD much above 193kph at 2000m. That is a large disparity.

 

Happy to share the data files if you wish.

S!

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

This is good to hear, thanks Anton.

Are the devs also open to looking at the SPAD? 

There is very good data from a number of sources ( Bruce, Andrews, the French, NACA) showing a speed of 218kph at 2000m for the 220hp high compression engines. In FC i cant get the SPAD much above 193kph at 2000m. That is a large disparity.

 

Happy to share the data files if you wish.

S!

 

No need to fly the SPAD if the Camel is as good as stated. Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AnPetrovich Thanks for the clarification. Whatever one's views on the balance issue it is good to know what your intentions are for the FC series.

Share this post


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

So we’re back to the Camel slaughtering everything?  I probably should not have pre-ordered this game.

 

Why not ?  You can still probably down the Camel with a Fw 190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

In FC i cant get the SPAD much above 193kph at 2000m. That is a large disparity.

It should well do 220+ km/h.

 

EDIT:

I will try to see what makes sense speed whise apart from "published numbers" by looking at the engines/propellers.

 

for the SPAD etc, this list might be of interest:

AEF-catalog.jpg

You can see there are different propellers for the SPADs, differing in pitch as well. The SPAD XIII had propellers with pitch from 2.15 meters to 2.45 meters.

 

With a gearing of 24/41 and a 2.15 m pitch prop,  this makes the plane go 151 km @ rated 2000 engine rpm. With a 2.45 meter pitch, it will go 172 km/h at 2000 rpm.

 

Edited by ZachariasX

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

×