Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

It might be a case of no time to work the FMs, so it is either pre-nerfing or post-nerfing FMs. Then it will be wrong either way. They both needed a fix. On the case of the Camel, she is on the extremes. The pre-nerfed Camel is not believable. 194km/h is way too fast. The post-nerfed Camel that we still have in ROF is basically worse than a post-nerfed Pup, which is also an anomaly.

 

It is hard to make any comments at this point. Would be nice to work the rpms and take into account other planes with the Oberursel and Clerget, make it more balanced. Work altitude performance when needed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It doesn’t matter how fast the Spad can go if everyone is flying Camels.

It will be a popular plane, as both the Camel and the Dr.I are made to measure for the 1GCAP. At least in chasing each other around trees.

 

I wonder how peroformance will be at altitude. I need to check that.Also the handling is rather different. The Pfalz D.III, even though slower, with the better roll is not that hopleless. I find it easy to shoot AI Camels with it.

 

Not convinced that it must reflect the same picture as in RoF. But we will see.

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

I hope that Albs would even gain more speed in FC :)

Ehm.. the Albies were given more power with "the patch". Only after "The Patch" they became the jack of all trades to make it easy to score. Before, they were victims.

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

Ehm.. the Albies were given more power with "the patch". Only after "The Patch" they became the jack of all trades to make it easy to score. Before, they were victims.

I know that , that's why I don't want them be pre  Dec 2014 patch.

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

‘Why?  The Camel will be fast enough to run down anything on the map.  

The Camel is fast, but in the curren FM of FC it doesn't come across as the UFO is was in RoF. As said, I never had much chances against AI Camels in RoF while fkying the Pfalz D.III. here, with the good roll the Pfalz has, you catch up with it during the initial turn, giving you chance for a shot. In RoF, it doesn't feel like that. Just initial impression though.

 

Then again, we will see. Player attendance will spell the verdict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS

We produce high-quality flight simulators, which means that we are based on calculations, not on the desires of someone to have his lovely airplane better than it really was. We always ready for open discussions about the flight performances, but only good sources (which, however, always contradict each other, as you know) are the only way to make some corrections in the FM if we made any mistakes.

Btw, guys,
you actually don't need to make flight tests.
If you take a look at the airplanes descriptions in the game you can find there precise numbers based on in-game tests (ISA).
F.e. 219 km/h for SPAD in FC at MSL.
 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am happy that you will use a data and physics based approach. I would just add that one reason why people are testing the Camel is because the Specifications tab in the game has no data in it. (Just for the Camel, that is).

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS
3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I would just add that one reason why people are testing the Camel is because the Specifications tab in the game has no data in it. (Just for the Camel, that is).

 

Really? That's odd, we made the description for every FC airplanes... will check, thanks!

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS
55 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I would just add that one reason why people are testing the Camel is because the Specifications tab in the game has no data in it. (Just for the Camel, that is).

 

Damn, you are right!
We missed a part of the description because of the "&" in "Boulton & Paul Ltd"... Sorry guys!

 

Well, until we fix it I put the full description down here:

Spoiler

 

The Sopwith Camel's construction was based on that of its predecessor, the Sopwith Pup. Sopwith's chief designer Herbert Smith decided to somewhat alter the Pup’s design, since a newarger and heavier engine would have to be mounted. Some changes were made to theanding gear struts, the spacing of the wings and stabiliser were increased, and the fuselage acquired an extension to the cockpit's trailing edge, whichooked ratherike a camel’s hump. That 'hump' is what gave the plane its name - the Sopwith Camel.
 

A remarkable detail of the plane’s construction was its compactness: the pilot’s seat, fuel tanks, machine guns and engine were all installed very close together. In parallel with the work of the main Sopwith factory, the plane was also assembled by a number of other companies such as Ruston Proctor Co, Portholme Aerodrome Ltd, Boulton && Paul Ltd, British Caudron Co. Ltd, Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd, Hooper & Co. Ltd and others. In total, about 5490 Camels were built. The Camel’s first flight trials were performed by the British No. 60 squadron in March of 1917, which were followed by a series of minor improvements to the plane’s construction. Production aircraft were first delivered to fighter squadrons in May of 1917. It was primarily used for destroying enemy aircraft and balloons, while from time to time it was also engaged in ground attack operations. English journalists referred to this plane as a “small and agile beast.”
 

Camel pilots mentioned the plane’s well-balanced flight controls, the good upward view, and the high cruising speed. Due to the aircraft's unique balance, the plane could almost instantly change its heading, which made the Camel a dangerous opponent. The typical combat scenario for the Camel pilot was a dogfight atow and medium altitudes, where the Camel had the advantage in steep turns. Veterans were known to say, “Once you become a Camel pilot, you will fly it forever.” In addition to equipping British units, this plane was also piloted by four American squadrons of the U.S. Air Service and by some Belgian pilots.


Engine
Clerget 9B rotary 9 cyl., 130 h.p.
 

Dimensions
Height : 2590 mm
Length : 5490 mm
Wing span : 8530 mm
Wing surface: 21,46 sq.m.


Weight
Empty weight : 431 kg
Takeoff weight : 700 kg
Fuel capacity : 168 l
Oil capacity : 20 l


Climb rate
1000 m — 2 min. 37 sec
2000 m — 5 min. 46 sec.
3000 m — 9 min. 40 sec.
4000 m — 14 min. 45 sec.
5000 m — 21 min. 41 sec.
6000 m — 32 min. 17 sec.


Maximum airspeed (IAS)
sea level — 195 km/h
1000 m — 183 km/h
2000 m — 170 km/h
3000 m — 158 km/h
4000 m — 145 km/h
5000 m — 132 km/h
6000 m — 117 km/h


Service ceiling 6700 m


Endurance at 1000m
nominal power (combat) — 2 h. 50 min.
minimal consumption (cruise) — 5 h.


Armament:
Forward firing: 2хVickers Mk.I 7.69, 500 rounds per barrel.
Bomboad: 36kg


References:
1) Sopwith Aircraft Blueprints, WWI Aero Magazine.
2) The Sopwith Camel. Profile publications Number 31.
3) Sopwith Camel.  JM Bruce Windsock Datafile 26.
4) Sopwith Camel Aces of Wold War I.  Norman Franks,  Osprey №52.
5) Flying the Camel in 1918. FLIGHT International, 2 May 1968.
6) A History of No.10 Sq. RNAS in WWI. Mike Westrop, Schiffer Military History.
7) Sopwith Camel Specification.

 

 

P.S.

You know, here is a good joke about what the programming really is.
This is like you are a writer and wrote a novel, but only one comma have missed at page 47 makes your labor meaningless. Exactly this case! (Sorry for my English)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 6
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurrah! My feedback is useful, I feel so validated. :) 

 

BTW there is some feeling that the rotary precessional effect that is very easy to see in the Dr.1 is either missing from the Camel or is so subtle that I and others have reported difficulty detecting it.  If this is as intended fine, but perhaps another comma has gone missing?

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

Hurrah! My feedback is useful, I feel so validated. :) 

 

BTW there is some feeling that the rotary precessional effect that is very easy to see in the Dr.1 is either missing from the Camel or is so subtle that I and others have reported difficulty detecting it.  If this is as intended fine, but perhaps another comma has gone missing?

Rudder assist? ;)

 

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

Rudder assist? ;)

 

 

Excuse me, who do you think you are talking to in that vile manner? ;) 

 

Actually I was able to turn fairly smoothly left and right with the feet completely off the rudder pedals and the rudder in the neutral position with my usual settings. Do you not have the same experience?

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

 

Damn, you are right!
We missed a part of the description because of the "&" in "Boulton & Paul Ltd"... Sorry guys!

 

Well, until we fix it I put the full description down here:

  Hide contents

 

The Sopwith Camel's construction was based on that of its predecessor, the Sopwith Pup. Sopwith's chief designer Herbert Smith decided to somewhat alter the Pup’s design, since a newarger and heavier engine would have to be mounted. Some changes were made to theanding gear struts, the spacing of the wings and stabiliser were increased, and the fuselage acquired an extension to the cockpit's trailing edge, whichooked ratherike a camel’s hump. That 'hump' is what gave the plane its name - the Sopwith Camel.
 

A remarkable detail of the plane’s construction was its compactness: the pilot’s seat, fuel tanks, machine guns and engine were all installed very close together. In parallel with the work of the main Sopwith factory, the plane was also assembled by a number of other companies such as Ruston Proctor Co, Portholme Aerodrome Ltd, Boulton && Paul Ltd, British Caudron Co. Ltd, Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd, Hooper & Co. Ltd and others. In total, about 5490 Camels were built. The Camel’s first flight trials were performed by the British No. 60 squadron in March of 1917, which were followed by a series of minor improvements to the plane’s construction. Production aircraft were first delivered to fighter squadrons in May of 1917. It was primarily used for destroying enemy aircraft and balloons, while from time to time it was also engaged in ground attack operations. English journalists referred to this plane as a “small and agile beast.”
 

Camel pilots mentioned the plane’s well-balanced flight controls, the good upward view, and the high cruising speed. Due to the aircraft's unique balance, the plane could almost instantly change its heading, which made the Camel a dangerous opponent. The typical combat scenario for the Camel pilot was a dogfight atow and medium altitudes, where the Camel had the advantage in steep turns. Veterans were known to say, “Once you become a Camel pilot, you will fly it forever.” In addition to equipping British units, this plane was also piloted by four American squadrons of the U.S. Air Service and by some Belgian pilots.


Engine
Clerget 9B rotary 9 cyl., 130 h.p.
 

Dimensions
Height : 2590 mm
Length : 5490 mm
Wing span : 8530 mm
Wing surface: 21,46 sq.m.


Weight
Empty weight : 431 kg
Takeoff weight : 700 kg
Fuel capacity : 168 l
Oil capacity : 20 l


Climb rate
1000 m — 2 min. 37 sec
2000 m — 5 min. 46 sec.
3000 m — 9 min. 40 sec.
4000 m — 14 min. 45 sec.
5000 m — 21 min. 41 sec.
6000 m — 32 min. 17 sec.


Maximum airspeed (IAS)
sea level — 195 km/h
1000 m — 183 km/h
2000 m — 170 km/h
3000 m — 158 km/h
4000 m — 145 km/h
5000 m — 132 km/h
6000 m — 117 km/h


Service ceiling 6700 m


Endurance at 1000m
nominal power (combat) — 2 h. 50 min.
minimal consumption (cruise) — 5 h.


Armament:
Forward firing: 2хVickers Mk.I 7.69, 500 rounds per barrel.
Bomboad: 36kg


References:
1) Sopwith Aircraft Blueprints, WWI Aero Magazine.
2) The Sopwith Camel. Profile publications Number 31.
3) Sopwith Camel.  JM Bruce Windsock Datafile 26.
4) Sopwith Camel Aces of Wold War I.  Norman Franks,  Osprey №52.
5) Flying the Camel in 1918. FLIGHT International, 2 May 1968.
6) A History of No.10 Sq. RNAS in WWI. Mike Westrop, Schiffer Military History.
7) Sopwith Camel Specification.

 

 

P.S.

You know, here is a good joke about what the programming really is.
This is like you are a writer and wrote a novel, but only one comma have missed at page 47 makes your labor meaningless. Exactly this case! (Sorry for my English)

 

Just to point out a typo before it goes into the game:
. ''The typical combat scenario for the Camel pilot was a dogfight atow and medium altitudes''
Should read 'at low'

Edited by Archie
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Excuse me, who do you think you are talking to in that vile manner? ;) 

 

Actually I was able to turn fairly smoothly left and right with the feet completely off the rudder pedals and the rudder in the neutral position with my usual settings. Do you not have the same experience?

I do. The Camel cruises rather straight. I find it rather pleasant to fly. But I find the ailerons are terrible as they should be and require some foot if you are making coarse movements on the stick to keep the furry straight.

 

I will experiment with different fuel loads to see if that affects pitch stability.

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

Maximum airspeed (IAS)
sea level — 195 km/h
1000 m — 183 km/h
2000 m — 170 km/h
3000 m — 158 km/h
4000 m — 145 km/h
5000 m — 132 km/h
6000 m — 117 km/h

 

RG0BS1U.gif

 

Well, I'm glad to have started this historic thread.

 

 

EDIT: Also editing topic title and linking directly to the relevant post in the OP.

Edited by Hellbender
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

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.

 

[...]


We produce high-quality flight simulators, which means that we are based on calculations, not on the desires of someone to have his lovely airplane better than it really was. We always ready for open discussions about the flight performances, but only good sources (which, however, always contradict each other, as you know) are the only way to make some corrections in the FM if we made any mistakes.

Btw, guys,
you actually don't need to make flight tests.
If you take a look at the airplanes descriptions in the game you can find there precise numbers based on in-game tests (ISA).
F.e. 219 km/h for SPAD in FC at MSL.

 

I am thrilled to hear that we are returning to a state where facts trump feelings, especially in times of Trump.

 

 

Although it is unnecessary for me to make any flight tests, I am for the most part able to match the data provided using the Kuban Autumn map at sea level.

 

  • With the SPAD XIII at sea level I can now reach 217km/h of the 219km/h mentioned (-2km/h)
     
  • With the Sopwith Camel at sea level I can now reach 190km/h of the 195km/h mentioned (-5km/h)

 

This is just quick testing done by an amateur, not a controlled test. I am sure that under ideal conditions, even these minor speed deficiencies could be addressed and a higher airspeed reached (ISA, reduced fuel load etc.).

 

 

 

 

Which brings me to my next point:

 

  • With the Pfalz D.IIIa at sea level I can now reach 177km/h of the 171km/h mentioned (+6km/h)

kELxlMN.jpg

 

FhbTSaK.jpg

 

 

Again this is just measured during a quick mission in Kuban Autumn. As with the SPAD and Camel, under controlled conditions (ISA) someone more qualified than myself could undoubtedly reach a higher airspeed at sea level. In other words: the data should at least be equal to the speed someone can measure in the simulator.

 

We are left to guess at why this is the case, though one could speculate it could be a leftover of the RoF update 1.034 (December 2014).

 

Will you repeat the in-game tests to measure the correct speed of the Pfalz D.IIIa or is the Pfalz currently performing better than it should?

 

 

TL;DR Is the Pfalz too fast?

 

 

(I won't mention the Dr.I as you've already noted that it is a work in progress)

 

 

Thanks again for your time and insights!

Edited by Hellbender
Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa!, the super-camel is back!

 

I had posted this before, extract of Aircraft Profile no. 31 that Petrovich cited as one of his sources. The first 4 are Clergets.

image.thumb.png.6c16b5b096804888c0105080cab0677e.png

 

The complaint against the Camel in RoF was not that it did not match its test performance, but that the quality of production models did not match that of prototypes, but that was based on a lot of cherry picked anecdotes.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if either the Camel or DRI should reach their theoretical best speed.  I would have thought that the flying characteristics of both aircraft meant that slipping and sliding was the order of the day rather than truly coordinated flight and with few instruments to help it's all seat of the pants stuff.  That said I was a little surprised how well the Camel flew when I jumped out of the pilots seat and did a bit of free form skydiving.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

With the SPAD XIII at sea level I can now reach 217km/h of the 219km/h mentioned (-2km/h)

With the Sopwith Camel at sea level I can now reach 190km/h of the 195km/h mentioned (-5km/h)

With the Pfalz D.IIIa at sea level I can now reach 177km/h of the 171km/h mentioned (+6km/h)

 

Kuban single mission, 15ºC, 760 pressure, no wind, no turbulence. 100% fuel, full ammo. 5 or 6 meters of altitude depending on the plane. Rad 100% open. Below that, the plane will either splash or disengage the auto level. I did not test if the speed varies with rad open or closed, but on the first run of the Pfalz, I was with the rad closed and it reached the same 178km/h, the same as in ROF.

 

With the Spad I can reach the 219km/h mentioned. IIRC, 87% mixture, 6 meters of altitude (any lower and she will disengage the auto level).

 

With the Camel I can reach 194km/h at 5 meters of altitude (at 4 meters she splashes in the water). The 195km/h might be a tiny bit of mixture up or down, but I don't think so. Usually the max will encompass at least 2% of mixture. And I'm going up and down more like 1/3rds of 1%. In other words, three taps on the mixture to go from 77 to 78% for example. All I got from 85 all the way up to 92% (below or over it starts decreasing IIRC) is 194km/h. Which is well in the margin of the mentioned speed.

 

With the Pfalz I can reach 178km/h at 5 meters of altitude.

 

Just quick tests. Below are the missions.

 

Sopwith Camel sea level run 5m.zip

Pfalz D3a sea level run 5m.zip

Fokker Dr.1 sea level run 5m.zip

Spad 13 sea level run 6m.zip

Edited by SeaW0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

With the Spad I can reach the 219km/h mentioned. IIRC, 87% mixture, 6 meters of altitude (any lower and she will disengage the auto level).

 

 

What do you get at 2000m? I can't get above 193kph.

Edit: believe the store indicates 195 at 2000m, so I guess thats aligned,  but need to rationalise that against multiple data sources stating 217.

Perhaps a separate conversation :)

Edited by US103_Baer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel some of these discussions are rather academic.

 

How accurate are the data that You compare against ?

I´m sure in real life You could take 4 Camels (or any other aircraft) from the assembly line and find that they all differ from the data.

One might be faster, the other slower.

 

Any part of an aircraft is affected by varying quality and tolerances that will fect the final performance.

 

One engine might developer 135 Hp, while another from the same batch only developes 128 Hp.

 

You might experience a "monday" model, where the quality is bad in all regards.

 

On top of this, in daily operation, maintanance, oil and fuel quality comes into play also. and to top it off, the pilots ability to get the most out of it.

 

 

Yesterday I could down both AI Fokker DR.1's, Pfalz rather easy with the Camel, but shifting side, flying a Fokker Dr.1 against Camels and I could still get on their tail.

 

The one and only complaint I have is the missing precession from the rotary engine.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fjacobsen said:

The one and only complaint I have is the missing precession from the rotary engine

It‘s there. As it should. The faster you go, the less you have to correct for it.

 

Make slow hard turns and you‘ll see that you have to correct a lot for that, especially in comparison to blipping your engine and making the same turn. Slow left turn needs full left rudder. And left right ailerons to compensate for the induced roll. Then again, if you ended up like that, you fly not in an efficient way. In right turns, you can compensate precession with elevator alone.

 

If you want to see precession, all you need to do is a pitch oscillation. If there is precession, it will result in an according yaw movement. Also there note, the faster you go, the easier it is for your controls and tailplane to straighten out the aircraft.

 

EVERY aircraft with a propeller has this sort of precession and if you are doing aerobatics, you need to learn to compensate the resulting yaw when doing changes in pitch attitude.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It‘s there. As it should. The faster you go, the less you have to correct for it.

 

Make slow hard turns and you‘ll see that you have to correct a lot for that, especially in comparison to blipping your engine and making the same turn. Slow left turn needs full left rudder. And left ailerons to compensate for the induced roll. Then again, if you ended up like that, you fly not in an efficient way. In right turns, you can compensate precession with elevator alone.

 

If you want to see precession, all you need to do is a pitch oscillation. If there is precession, it will result in an according yaw movement. Also there note, the fater you go, the easier it is for your controls and tailplane to straighten out the aircraft.

 

EVERY aircraft with a propeller has this sort of precession and if you are doing aerobatics, you need to learn to compensate the resulting yaw when doing changes in pitch attitude.

 

Thx for Your feedback on this.

 

I will try when I get home...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm scared, really scared, of the propeller !!!

 

No, not the big one at the front, but the little one spinning away beside my head.  I can't believe it was exactly where it is depicted.  Lean out slightly to the right and BUMF, you nut your noggin on the air con fan.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

What do you get at 2000m? I can't get above 193kph.

Edit: believe the store indicates 195 at 2000m, so I guess thats aligned,  but need to rationalise that against multiple data sources stating 217.

Perhaps a separate conversation :)

 

I'll test today and post the results later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS

One more note:

While you are testing the maximum speed, please, don't do it too close to the ground (or water) to avoid a ground effect. I've never measured in RoF/FC how much it helps at 5 or 6 meters of altitude, but theoretically you have to stay a wing span away from the surface. Anyway, I think that the ground effect can affect the maximum speed a little more than the difference of air density at 5 or, f.e. 15 meters.

 

Btw, in our internal tests we use special tools which set ISA or any density altitude at any true altitude we need. So, when we make a statement about the maximum speed of some airplane ingame at MSL, we exactly mean 760 mm Hg, and 15°C.

 

P.S.

I will recheck the Pfalz.

P.P.S.

Correction: "...you have to stay a half wing span away..."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the torque / gyro effect thingamybob is still there. If you're cruising at a moderate speed and 'blip', the Camel still displays a slight roll twitch - although I don't think it's as pronounced as in RoF.

But of course the blipper now has a lag of about 1 second whereas in RoF it was instantaneous.  Was this deliberate ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS

This is a sound lag, not in the simulation. Will be fixed.

Regarding the gyro effect,
the airplanes in FC have the same parameters as in RoF:

Fokker Dr.I
Le Rhone 9J rotary MoI = 6 kg*sq.m, prop MoI = 5 kg*sq.m

Sopith Camel
Сlerget 9B rotary MoI = 6 kg*sq.m, prop MoI = 5 kg*sq.m

and they have quite similar RPM.
So, there is no magic, just a mathematics: the gyro moment calculates by known formula, using RPM, MoI and the airplane rotation speeds around lateral and vertical axises. You can feel the difference between the airplanes just because they have different aerodynamics (stability and control al least).

  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a layman’s perspective here, but I also wonder if a lot of the handling differences are the result of porting ROF planes over to the much more sophisticated and advanced Digital Warfare engine. There are more inputs to factor in on this engine than there were on ROF’s old Digital Nature engine. Obviously, these planes are a work in progress and will be tweaked as time passes, but I believe in the end we’ll get a flying experience with Flying Circus that is even more real and breathtaking than ROF. And that’s saying something! :)

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
×
×
  • Create New...