Parachutes as a Loadout option

[BMA_Hellbender]

6 hours ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

I'm of the mind that allowing 'chutes for aircraft should be option-able server side. I also like the idea of it being a mod with a weight penalty.

 

I agree, but to the opposite. “Remove parachute” should be a field mod with a (very small) reduction in weight and increase in performance over the current numbers as a result. It may seem trivial, but it would also mean that a server setting could never forbid you from taking one, only forbid you from not taking one.

 

EDIT: Unless a modification can also be forced on server side, which is not the case in RoF. In that case it really doesn’t matter

 

Whether it is standard equipment or not should in any case be plane dependent, especially if we look ahead to Volume 2, which should take us further back in time.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Hellbender

[Panzerlang]

Why oh why didn't they begin with the early planes this time around? It would have made for a natural progression.

[BMA_West]

1 hour ago, Uffz-Prien said:

Why oh why didn't they begin with the early planes this time around? It would have made for a natural progression.

 

Sales?

This module is the door for whatever will be ported from ROF next or eventual new developments to follow and only successful in sales will it open.

Edited February 9, 2019 by West

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Uffz-Prien said:

Why oh why didn't they begin with the early planes this time around? It would have made for a natural progression.

 

Same reason why ROF started with 1918 - those are the most recognizable and popular planes.

[SeaW0lf]

8 hours ago, Hellbender said:

"Remove parachute” should be a field mod with a (very small) reduction in weight and increase in performance

 

I agree. Checking this post, a added gun could be a penalty well over 100lb if we account the gun, the gun mount, 500 rounds of amo and the belt. From what I'm reading, it apears that the parachute weighed around 35lb. The performance difference (with / without the parachute) would be marginal if I'm not mistaken.

Edited February 9, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:32 AM, US103_Baer said:

Had a few discussions with regular MP pilots and the idea of WW1 parachutes as a loadout option seemed to make sense. It may have come up before but we hadn't noticed.

 

Benefits seem obvious.

- A known weight penalty can be added and pilots can choose whether to take them or not.

- Mission makers/server operators could have greater control whether parachutes are provided and, potentially, for which particular plane types. If a mission/map is set before they were historically available then obviously they wouldn't be a loadout option.

- Jasta and seniority availability. Depending how much control is possible for mission makers, it may be possible to align with historical use by Jasta or pilot seniority.

 

Of course if the Devs could add unreliability that would be great too!

 

Thoughts?

 

They were standard issue for Germans since mid-1918. The option to not take them would represent few spring months in 1918 between introduction and standardisation, at best. It shouldn't be an option in D.VII or anything with 200hp engine.

FC 1 represents summer 1918 planes, when stanaer was in place.

OTOH, current Dr.I and D.IIIa FMs perform as if they already counted the weight of the parachute. Make the "no parachute" option switch them to old Pfazlcopter and pre-2014 Dr.I and we can talk ?.

Edited February 13, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

They were standard issue for Germans since mid-1918. The option to not take them would represent few spring months in 1918 between introduction and standardisation, at best. It shouldn't be an option in D.VII or anything with 200hp engine.

FC 1 represents summer 1918 planes, when stanaer was in place.

OTOH, current Dr.I and D.IIIa FMs perform as if they already counted the weight of the parachute. Make the "no parachute" option switch them to old Pfazlcopter and pre-2014 Dr.I and we can talk ?.

 

I agree, but please don't bring back the Pfalzcopter. That thing was an abomination, just as bad as the RoF Nieuport 28.

 

This was clearly a case where the developers at the time (who are no longer with the company, according to @AnPetrovich) looked exclusively at wing surface area and calculated wing loading accordingly, without taking any other factors such as camber into account. Since the Pfalz D.IIIa has a very large wing area (it's an actual biplane compared to the Albatros' sesquiplane design) and the Nieuport 28 has a very small wing area, they respectively have very low and very high wing loading.

 

While corrective action was undertaken for the Pfalz in 2014, sadly the Nieuport only had a tiny bugfix related to the rising of its tail during take-off roll.

 

@Panthera made a very interesting post about the Nieuport back in 2012, but that seems to have been lost in the annals of history. (lol, annal)

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/27845-nieuport-28/

 

 

 

As for the Dr.I, it is probably more representative now of a 110hp Oberursel Ur.II-powered rotary, especially in terms of max RPM. I would, however, place its top speed somewhere in the neighbourhood of 175km/h rather than 165km/h. As far as I know, AnPetrovich mentioned an FM revision was in the works using @Chill31's data.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Hellbender

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

OTOH, current Dr.I and D.IIIa FMs perform as if they already counted the weight of the parachute. Make the "no parachute" option switch them to old Pfazlcopter and pre-2014 Dr.I and we can talk ?.

 

Trup, you're a tough negotiator.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

As for the Dr.I, it is probably more representative now of a 110hp Oberursel Ur.II-powered rotary, especially in terms of max RPM.

 

But that's not really accurate. The current 1280rpm max at ISA Standard Atmosphere on the Dr.1 is more or less combat mode, not max mode. These engines can get to 1400rpm. The D8 tested in the US (same engine) ran at 1390rpm at sea level. They might have just lowered the rpm to nerf these planes back in 2014.

 

If we compare with the 1420rpm of the new Camel, we have double standards. But I understand that in ROF these things were a bit loose as far as I know (never really did an overal comparison). As you mentioned, in the past they apparently relied more on ‘house made’ math than actual information on the planes.

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

 

This was clearly a case where the developers at the time (who are no longer with the company, according to @AnPetrovich) looked exclusively at wing surface area and calculated wing loading accordingly, without taking any other factors such as camber into account. Since the Pfalz D.IIIa has a very large wing area (it's an actual biplane compared to the Albatros' sesquiplane design) and the Nieuport 28 has a very small wing area, they respectively have very low and very high wing loading.

 

 

Without a reference point, 'very low' and 'very high' are meaningless phrases, however despite having slightly lower wing area, the N28 has a lower wing loading than the Pfalz DIIIa. N28 isn't eligible for a parachute.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Cynic_Al

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

But that's not really accurate. The current 1280rpm max at ISA Standard Atmosphere on the Dr.1 is more or less combat mode, not max mode. These engines can get to 1400rpm. The D8 tested in the US (same engine) ran at 1390rpm at sea level. They might have just lowered the rpm to nerf these planes back in 2014.

 

If we compare with the 1420rpm of the new Camel, we have double standards. But I understand that in ROF these things were a bit loose as far as I know (never really did an overal comparison). As you mentioned, in the past they apparently relied more on ‘house made’ math than actual information on the planes.

 

As far as I know, the actual Oberursel Ur.II, a copy of the Le Rhone 9J, could produce 110hp at 1200 RPM and 135hp at 1350 RPM. Those figures are valid for both engines as they are essentially the same. The reason why the Oberursel would have run at a lower RPM would have been entirely because of cooling issues with the Ersatz (replacement) oil, as castor oil was not available to the Germans in operational quantities.

 

The Fokker Dr.I protype "F.I" which ran with a Le Rhone 9J and castor oil, as flown by Werner Voss, would have reached 185km/h at sea level, comparable to the historical figure of 188km/h at sea level for the Sopwith Camel and its 130hp Clerget. In the same vein, the Fokker D.VIII would have reached close to 200km/h in American post-war testing, using castor oil.

 

Again, I don't agree with 165km/h for a 110hp running at 1200 RPM, it should be 175km/h, but I sincerely doubt it could run at a higher RPM for any amount of time. This is why this plane needs an actual FM review, not an RPM fix.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Without a reference point, 'very low' and 'very high' are meaningless phrases, however despite having slightly lower wing area, the N28 has a lower wing loading than the Pfalz DIIIa. N28 isn't eligible for a parachute.

 

That is correct.

 

The N28 had a lower wing loading than the Pfalz, in spite of having a slightly lower wing area. Lower wing loading means poor instantaneous turn performance, but superior sustained turn performance. 

 

This is not reflected correctly in Rise of Flight, where the N28 has an excellent instantenous turn, but is unable to sustain a turn.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Hellbender

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

As far as I know, the actual Oberursel Ur.II, a copy of the Le Rhone 9J, could produce 110hp at 1200 RPM and 135hp at 1350 RPM.

 

I have quoted (more than once) people from The Aerodrome with the Oberursel manual saying:

 

the original oberursel operating manual states that the engines are not allowed to be run over 1250rpm.
nonetheless they indicate the following rpm for best results
groundlevel 1360-1380
1000m 1260-1280
2000m 1240-1260
3000m 1220-1240
4000m 1200-1220
5000m 1180-1200

 

If you are used to research these engines, you realize that they have a pattern. Like I said, the D8 tested in 1921, same engine, reached 1390rpm. The Le Rhône could reach 1400rpm according to researchers. It is not rocket science. All these engines had cruise speeds, but they had room to extend. And the Ersatz oil was discussed ad aeternum. People could use such data in campaigns if they could simulate castor oil shipments, but other than that, we should fly the planes by factory standards.

 

Otherwise the whole lineup should go through an overall based on campain conditions. In other words, to pick on one plane is not particularly fair or accurate.

Edited February 13, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[BMA_Hellbender]

52 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I have quoted (more than once) people from The Aerodrome with the Oberursel manual saying:

 

the original oberursel operating manual states that the engines are not allowed to be run over 1250rpm.
nonetheless they indicate the following rpm for best results
groundlevel 1360-1380
1000m 1260-1280
2000m 1240-1260
3000m 1220-1240
4000m 1200-1220
5000m 1180-1200

 

If you are used to research these engines, you realize that they have a pattern. Like I said, the D8 tested in 1921, same engine, reached 1390rpm. The Le Rhône could reach 1400rpm according to researchers. It is not rocket science. All these engines had cruise speeds, but they had room to extend. And the Ersatz oil was discussed ad aeternum. People could use such data in campaigns if they could simulate castor oil shipments, but other than that, we should fly the planes by factory standards.

 

Otherwise the whole lineup should go through an overall based on campain conditions. In other words, to pick on one plane is not particularly fair or accurate.

 

I agree with all the above figures, even with the fact that you could run the Oberursel up to 1400 RPM at ground level where the pressure / quantity of air molecules is high enough to offer additional cooling. The question is: if the manual states "not allowed to be run over 1250 RPM", then we have two options:

 

1. Simply limit the Dr.I's RPM to 1250 in-game, as is the case right now, which represents it being limited by mechanics on the ground
    
2. Make everything above 1250 RPM count as "boost power" and possibly cause engine damage, especially at higher altitudes
    

 

I do disagree that listed top speeds are cruise speeds, though. The 188km/h figure of the Camel is very clearly a top speed at sea level. You might be able to reach just a bit more if you operate the engine under ideal conditions to destruction, but even then our current 195km/h Camel is a bit exaggerated. For the Fokker Dr.I, the 185km/h figure clearly comes from operating the machine to the limit. It puts it in the same ballpark as the Hanriot HD.1, which also had a 110hp Le Rhone 9J (that does go up to 1400 RPM), and a similar top speed of around 185km/h.

 

As for flying by factory standards, that would completely discount engines such as the overcompressed D.IIIau, which we will get on the Halberstadt CL.II. This was never a factory standard, nor does this type of engine even really exist in records. The 200hp figure is a post-war measurement, the engine itself remained rated at 180hp. Yet, we know for sure that all Mercedes-powered planes in service had underwent this field modification by summer 1918, some of them even straight out of the factory. That still doesn't change that the actual rating of the engine was lower than what it really was. As such, when we look at post-war measurements of the Pfalz and find a figure of 165km/h at 3000m (in-game you will barely reach 145'ish), this must have happened with an overcompressed 1918 machine.

 

With the Dr.I, it's the opposite. The actual factory rating of the prototype was not reached on service models. Whether pilots would risk breaking their engine by running it higher is a question I'm willing to entertain, though.

 

 

What were we talking about again?

 

Oh yeah, parachutes. Um, sure. I don't think they had much of an effect on level speed performance. Perhaps marginally so on climb.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Hellbender

[SeaW0lf]

3 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

I do disagree that listed top speeds are cruise speeds, though.

 

I said they have cruise speeds, I did not relate to numbers. Just in general to understand that some numbers are not really what the plane can muster.

 

But I disagree that we have to use 1250 just because the manual says it because the same manual states "if you want some love, go to 1360-80". And then we have to research about wear and tear to come with a number, contrary to some planes in BOX that blow up after 1 minute if I'm not mistaken. I guess some mechanics working on these engines could give us a clear answer, even Vintage Aviator, who produces some engines. My estimate is that these wear and tear numbers would be more relevant for the campaign servers.

 

I don't even know who started with the speed / rpm discussion (could be me). I'm just stating what I know because things can change overnight and then we all know how hard it is to undo what was done. And it is good to talk about it as well. I enjoy doing research.

[Cynic_Al]

31 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

Oh yeah, parachutes. Um, sure. I don't think they had much of an effect on level speed performance. Perhaps marginally so on climb.

 

I heard they had a significant effect on diving speed.

[BMA_Hellbender]

8 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I said they have cruise speeds, I did not relate to numbers. Just in general to understand that some numbers are not really what the plane can muster.

 

But I disagree that we have to use 1250 just because the manual says it because the same manual states "if you want some love, go to 1360-80". And then we have to research about wear and tear to come with a number, contrary to some planes in BOX that blow up after 1 minute if I'm not mistaken. I guess some mechanics working on these engines could give us a clear answer, even Vintage Aviator, who produces some engines. My estimate is that these wear and tear numbers would be more relevant for the campaign servers.

 

I don't even know who started with the speed / rpm discussion (could be me). I'm just stating what I know because things can change overnight and then we all know how hard it is to undo what was done. And it is good to talk about it as well. I enjoy doing research.

 

Blame Trupo, it's all his fault for bringing up the pre-2014 Fokker Dr.I.

 

It's your fault, Trupo! Boo-urns!

 

 

Anyway, yes, it's a very interesting discussion. I maintain that the Oberursel Ur.II is in every way an exact copy of the Le Rhone 9J. I even read somewhere (but I can't find it now) that it was a superior copy. German engineering and all that. Rotary engines in general were an amazing and extremely efficient design, even at high altitude, and they were mostly limited in power due to the huge spinning mass. Hence why a monstrosity such as the 160hp Gnome 9N Monosoupape was about the sheer physical limit of this engine type.

 

Hence, the only reason the Germans didn't massively adopt this engine beyond the Dr.I, D.VI (so easily forgotten), D.VIII and Siemens-Schuckerts, was because of Ersatz oil.

 

Ersatz. Ersatz. Ersatz. I just like saying it.

 

So if you ask the Vintage Aviator for test results of the Oberursel Ur.II, they should provide you with the numbers of the Le Rhone 9J, known to us all. Then if you ask those same aviators from the land of Middle Earth to repeat these tests with an inferior makeshift oil product for which the engine wasn't designed, they should provide you with the Elvish "Ishkhaqwi ai durugnul!".

 

Here's an interesting thread about Ersatz "Voltol" on the Aerodrome:

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51939

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I heard they had a significant effect on diving speed.

 

Especially when deployed.

[SeaW0lf]

2 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

So if you ask the Vintage Aviator for test results of the Oberursel Ur.II

 

I think it was more about the wear and tear, no power output, but Vintage Aviator is the only people out there that do not answer any queries ? (I made two over the years). But I have received wonderful and detailed information from various airman. I think they all love to talk about their rides, which they built with such passion (I would too).

 

On the weight of the parachute, I think it was as an excuse in general to be at the report, especially if we are talking about the later war aircraft. Strangely enough I think the lack of parachute had the opposite effect they imagined. If they knew they had a much better chance to survive with a parachute, people had one more reason to be confident.

[J2_Trupobaw]

17 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

On the weight of the parachute, I think it was as an excuse in general to be at the report, especially if we are talking about the later war aircraft. Strangely enough I think the lack of parachute had the opposite effect they imagined. If they knew they had a much better chance to survive with a parachute, people had one more reason to be confident.
 

I wouldn't be sure of that. The Dr.I airframe weighted only 406 kg, with 180kg margin till full load. Full fuel tank of 72 l was only 50-70 kg (and we know fuel load does affect performance), Pilot and his gear added up to 100kg (1/4 of airframe weight !), ammunition about 10 kg. The 20-30 kg parachute made 5-7% of empty fuselage,  1/3-1/2 of full fuel tank weight, double/tripple weight of full ammo load, and filled 25-40% of the 80kg load margin left after pilot sat in cockpit. Instead of 80 kg to distribute between ammo, fuel and performance, it left 50-60. 

BTW, when trying to find exact weight of  Heinecke Fallschirm i found this quote by Dan San Abbott:

 THe Heinecke Fallschirm was standard equipment, furnished by the Luftstreitkräfte to the aircraft manufacturer and were delivered with the aircraft as standard equipment, like the machine guns. from January-February 1918. Fighters were first and other type later, by war end all aircraft were delivered with the Heinecke Fallschirm. *

Edited February 14, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[SeaW0lf]

12 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I wouldn't be sure of that. The Dr.I airframe weighted only 406 kg, with 180kg margin till full load. Full fuel tank of 72 l was only 50-70 kg (and we know fuel load does affect performance), Pilot and his gear added up to 100kg (1/4 of airframe weight !), ammunition about 10 kg. The 20-30 kg parachute made 5-7% of empty fuselage,  1/3-1/2 of full fuel tank weight, double/tripple weight of full ammo load, and filled 25-40% of the 80kg load margin left after pilot sat in cockpit. Instead of 80 kg to distribute between ammo, fuel and performance, it left 50-60. 

BTW, when trying to find exact weight of  Heinecke Fallschirm i found this quote by Dan San Abbott:

 THe Heinecke Fallschirm was standard equipment, furnished by the Luftstreitkräfte to the aircraft manufacturer and were delivered with the aircraft as standard equipment, like the machine guns. from January-February 1918. Fighters were first and other type later, by war end all aircraft were delivered with the Heinecke Fallschirm. *

 

I doubt that 1.000 rounds of belted amo weighed only 10kg. If the plane was taking off with almost 600kg, 15kg wasn't a deal breaker. Perhaps with the Dr.1 it affected a bit, but I would not count with that on the SE5a for example. McCudden said when he was flying Pups and fighting Gothas: "It was very silly of me to carry three single drums of ammunition [47 rounds] when I could easily have carried a dozen without affecting the climb and speed of my machine". He is  exaggerating, but it could give us an idea. 

[SP1969]

1000 rounds of .303 weighs about 30 KG in a cloth belt. 

[Chill31]

On 2/13/2019 at 9:29 AM, Hellbender said:

 

As for the Dr.I, it is probably more representative now of a 110hp Oberursel Ur.II-powered rotary, especially in terms of max RPM. I would, however, place its top speed somewhere in the neighbourhood of 175km/h rather than 165km/h. As far as I know, AnPetrovich mentioned an FM revision was in the works using @Chill31's data.

 

 

 

Without question, the Dr. I is a 175 kmh airplane.  I currently have a 320 cubic inch 160 hp engine in it turning a 76 inch propeller and it gets 172kmh at 2700 rpm. I am going to put the Rhône 9Jb (essentially the Oberursel UR II) which is 920 cubic inches turning a 102 inch propeller at 1200 rpm.  The old engine is putting a lot of energy into the air, so I don’t anticipate it going any slower than it does right now.

On 2/13/2019 at 2:47 PM, Hellbender said:

 

Anyway, yes, it's a very interesting discussion. I maintain that the Oberursel Ur.II is in every way an exact copy of the Le Rhone 9J. I even read somewhere (but I can't find it now) that it was a superior copy. German engineering and all that.

The Oberursel is more closely a copy of the Rhône 9Jb which has aluminum pistons instead of steel and yield an additional 10 hp. In fact the Germans called it the 120 Rhône.  The Germans went to great effort to improve the engine by making it lighter. I don’t know how much lighter though.  I am friends with the rotary engine expert who put TVALs engines together, and I’ve seen the pictures of those details on the Oberursel.

 

 

On 2/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, SeaW0lf said:

 

I said they have cruise speeds, I did not relate to numbers. Just in general to understand that some numbers are not really what the plane can muster.

 

But I disagree that we have to use 1250 just because the manual says it because the same manual states "if you want some love, go to 1360-80". And then we have to research about wear and tear to come with a number, contrary to some planes in BOX that blow up after 1 minute if I'm not mistaken. I guess some mechanics working on these engines could give us a clear answer, even Vintage Aviator, who produces some engines. My estimate is that these wear and tear numbers would be more relevant for the campaign servers.

 

I don't even know who started with the speed / rpm discussion (could be me). I'm just stating what I know because things can change overnight and then we all know how hard it is to undo what was done. And it is good to talk about it as well. I enjoy doing research.

The practical rpm limit on the rotary engines comes from the centrifugal forces pulling them apart at high rpm, hence the reason the rpm limits are very similar.  My understanding is that TVAL doesn’t run their 80 Rhône’s over 1250 rpm out of that fear they will fly apart, though I don’t think they have had one fly apart. 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Chill31

[SeaW0lf]

38 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

The practical rpm limit on the rotary engines comes from the centrifugal forces pulling them apart at high rpm, hence the reason the rpm limits are very similar.  My understanding is that TVAL doesn’t run their 80 Rhône’s over 1250 rpm out of that fear they will fly apart, though I don’t think they have had one fly apart. 

 

So it is not really related to wear and tear, but of them flying apart? This is interesting. 

 

Could you ask this expert at TVALs (if you have a chance) why the original manual say it can be run at 1360-80rpm (to get more oomph) or why the D8 tested in the US in 1921 ran at 1390rpm at sea level? Perhaps this is a risk that a private pilot who is not in a war should not take so then people nowadays don't go above 1250rpm?

[Chill31]

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

So it is not really related to wear and tear, but of them flying apart? This is interesting. 

 

Could you ask this expert at TVALs (if you have a chance) why the original manual say it can be run at 1360-80rpm (to get more oomph) or why the D8 tested in the US in 1921 ran at 1390rpm at sea level? Perhaps this is a risk that a private pilot who is not in a war should not take so then people nowadays don't go above 1250rpm?

Do you have a copy of the original manual?  I sure could use one.  I have a maintenance manual for it, but it does not have the rpm limits in it.  

 

I don't know personally (and I don't think TVAL does either) what rpm causes them to fly apart.  I have seen pictures of aircraft in WWI where the rotary engine threw a cylinder through the cowling.  I am attaching a couple of documents that show relevant info of the URII vs the 9J.  There is only a marginal gain in HP with increased risk of engine damage/destruction.

 

I am sure a large part of the reluctance to run the engine very hard is that these things are irreplaceable.  I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be able to have one in my hands, but a stroke of luck has allowed it.  They are extremely rare, and I doubt if you could buy one from anyone who has one.  Though I've heard TVAL will make a new URII for 185k...don't know that for sure though, since I haven't asked.  Quite a bit out of my price range.  All of that to say, it is better to run it within the recommended rpm range than to push it hard.  Without any other evidence to support a higher rpm, I intend to use 1300 as a maximum on my 9J.

[SeaW0lf]

27 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Do you have a copy of the original manual?  I sure could use one.  I have a maintenance manual for it, but it does not have the rpm limits in it.  

 

I don't know personally (and I don't think TVAL does either) what rpm causes them to fly apart.  I have seen pictures of aircraft in WWI where the rotary engine threw a cylinder through the cowling.  I am attaching a couple of documents that show relevant info of the URII vs the 9J.  There is only a marginal gain in HP with increased risk of engine damage/destruction.

 

I am sure a large part of the reluctance to run the engine very hard is that these things are irreplaceable.  I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be able to have one in my hands, but a stroke of luck has allowed it.  They are extremely rare, and I doubt if you could buy one from anyone who has one.  Though I've heard TVAL will make a new URII for 185k...don't know that for sure though, since I haven't asked.  Quite a bit out of my price range.  All of that to say, it is better to run it within the recommended rpm range than to push it hard.  Without any other evidence to support a higher rpm, I intend to use 1300 as a maximum on my 9J.

 

 

I know, of course, I would never run it above the specifications if I had one as well. I think Mikael Carlson gets to 1100rpm on his Le Rhône (or perhaps the N11 from Vintage Aviator). There is no need to push the engine, unless we are talking about people doing stress tests in a factory line.

 

I'll try to get the manual, but it is from a post on The Aerodrome, and these topics are old and some members don't show up over there anymore. IIRC, he was translating from the original German. If I get a response I'll let you know.

 

Here is the original post about the manual. You could write a PM as well. If you say you have a Fokker Dr.1 replica he might be more inclined to share a print of the manual depending on the copyright status of the document / book.

Edited February 17, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Here is the original post about the manual. 

 

I see that the book

 

DeChamps und Kutzbach
Prüfung, Wartung und Weiterentwicklung von Flugmotoren
 

is available as paperback. It is where the data of that forum post seems to come from, as they say. I will try and get a hold of a copy.

 

As the title is littered with errors on the Amazon preview cover, I have no idea what the content will be. But for less than $30, it might be worth a try.

 

On 2/14/2019 at 4:54 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

The 20-30 kg parachute made 5-7% of empty fuselage,

That puzzled me. Was it *that* heavy? Silk is silk, then and today. (Ok we have lighter plastic now as well, but weight difference is marginal on the whole. It is convenince of hauling it around.) One of the first working chutes weighted 21 kg and a T-10 with everything weights 14 kg. Rescue chutes usually are smaller chutes as they are meant to carry less, not like a fully equipped soldier of maybe up to 130 kg. Having the silk seat cussion or not should not be that much.

 

Else, we could also opt for a t-shirt pilot clothing if you are just fragging around at tree top level in summer. You‘d save plenty of weight as well...

 

[SeaW0lf]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I see that the book

 

DeChamps und Kutzbach
Prüfung, Wartung und Weiterentwicklung von Flugmotoren
 

is available as paperback. It is where the data of that forum post seems to come from, as they say. I will try and get a hold of a copy.

 

As the title is littered with errors on the Amazon preview cover, I have no idea what the content will be. But for less than $30, it might be worth a try.

 

That puzzled me. Was it *that* heavy? Silk is silk, then and today. (Ok we have lighter plastic now as well, but weight difference is marginal on the whole. It is convenince of hauling it around.) One of the first working chutes weighted 21 kg and a T-10 with everything weights 14 kg. Rescue chutes usually are smaller chutes as they are meant to carry less, not like a fully equipped soldier of maybe up to 130 kg. Having the silk seat cussion or not should not be that much.

 

Else, we could also opt for a t-shirt pilot clothing if you are just fragging around at tree top level in summer. You‘d save plenty of weight as well...

 

 

Check the thread, because the book might be from another quote, not the manual.

 

I cannot affirm, but I read somewhere that the parachute weighed 15kg. In another site I read that the early parachutes, before the war, weighed 20kg. But it wasn't a very detailed search.

[SeaW0lf]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I see that the book

 

DeChamps und Kutzbach
Prüfung, Wartung und Weiterentwicklung von Flugmotoren
 

is available as paperback.

 

 

Where did they mention this book? I'm checking the thread but I'm not findig it. And what Mayrhofer was saying was: no further details as this is strictly a operating manual. As I understood, he's talking about an operating manual, right? 

[BMA_Hellbender]

18 hours ago, Chill31 said:

 

Without question, the Dr. I is a 175 kmh airplane.  I currently have a 320 cubic inch 160 hp engine in it turning a 76 inch propeller and it gets 172kmh at 2700 rpm. I am going to put the Rhône 9Jb (essentially the Oberursel UR II) which is 920 cubic inches turning a 102 inch propeller at 1200 rpm.  The old engine is putting a lot of energy into the air, so I don’t anticipate it going any slower than it does right now.

The Oberursel is more closely a copy of the Rhône 9Jb which has aluminum pistons instead of steel and yield an additional 10 hp. In fact the Germans called it the 120 Rhône.  The Germans went to great effort to improve the engine by making it lighter. I don’t know how much lighter though.  I am friends with the rotary engine expert who put TVALs engines together, and I’ve seen the pictures of those details on the Oberursel.

The practical rpm limit on the rotary engines comes from the centrifugal forces pulling them apart at high rpm, hence the reason the rpm limits are very similar.  My understanding is that TVAL doesn’t run their 80 Rhône’s over 1250 rpm out of that fear they will fly apart, though I don’t think they have had one fly apart. 

 

Thanks for your insights, Chill.

 

For reference, we have a Le Rhone 9Jby in Rise of Flight on the Hanriot HD.1 (Clerget 9b on the HD.2) which produces 130hp at 1300+ RPM.

 

It's very close in overall performance to the pre-2014 / Flying Circus Sopwith Camel 130hp Clerget 9b at 1400 RPM.

 

The Hanriot's speed at sea level is measured at 188km/h, compared to the Camel's 195km/h.

 

 

While we no longer have a pre-2014 Fokker Dr.I Oberursel Ur.II for comparison (though the store page still has data and places its top speed at 178km/h), we have the Fokker D.VIII, which operates with the same engine and same RPM.
 

At 1350+ RPM it has a measured top speed of 185km/h, which is certainly in line with a 120hp engine and a reduced drag profile compared to the Fokker Dr.I.

 

 

 

 

 

All of this to say: something close to the pre-2014 Fokker Dr.I is what we need to get to the 175km/h figure, if the same model to calculate speed through RPM is used in Flying Circus. Whether that model and RPM is correct or not, I leave to the experts.

 

 

...and last but not least, to keep this topic somewhat on track, do you fly with a parachute?

 

Because if you don't, you should. We can't risk losing you, you're too valuable!

Edited February 17, 2019 by Hellbender

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Where did they mention this book? I'm checking the thread but I'm not findig it. And what Mayrhofer was saying was: no further details as this is strictly a operating manual. As I understood, he's talking about an operating manual, right? 

They mention it here, just two posts down the thread message you quoted. I should think of it being a reprint of collected reports (Adlershof Documents) from the Militärwissenschaftliche Abteilung (something like the Technische Amt later on) about engine research during WW1. DeChamps seemed to have used them for his book. Supposedly. 

 

Koloman says this in post #34:

hallo,
a lot of the adlershof documents was used directly for the kutzbach dechamps book. dechamps worked for adlershof testcenter during the war,probably kutzbach too.this books published in the 1920´s are in most cases the only source of original datas as a lot of them fell to the attention of the usaf and raf later on.
 

[SeaW0lf]

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

They mention it here, just two posts down the thread message you quoted. I should think of it being a reprint of collected reports (Adlershof Documents) from the Militärwissenschaftliche Abteilung (something like the Technische Amt later on) about engine research during WW1. DeChamps seemed to have used them for his book. Supposedly. 

 

Koloman says this in post #34:

hallo,
a lot of the adlershof documents was used directly for the kutzbach dechamps book. dechamps worked for adlershof testcenter during the war,probably kutzbach too.this books published in the 1920´s are in most cases the only source of original datas as a lot of them fell to the attention of the usaf and raf later on.
 

 

But then he is not talking about the operating manual for the Oberursel (which he purposely left off the quote), but the Data about Adlershof tests are from "militärwissenschaftliche abteilung", collected in the 1930s and published in the 1970s. In other words, the Adlershof tests can be also found in the book you are considering to buy (Prüfung, Wartung und Weiterentwicklung von Flugmotoren).

 

If he wanted to link the manual to the book he would have quoted it, And Mayrhofer says operating manual, not book. So he might in fact have a manual in his hands, or he saw it somewhere.

Edited February 17, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

So he might in fact have a manual in his hands, or he saw it somewhere.

I think so as well. At least from reading the thread.

 

But I should be more interested in the Adlershof reports. The manual would rather state what you are supposed to be doing with it rather than the limits.

[SeaW0lf]

8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The manual would rather state what you are supposed to be doing with it rather than the limits.

 

But that was what Chill and I were discussing (rotary rpms, present in the original Oberursel manual). His interest would be in the manual, since he has the Le Rhônes.

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

But that was what Chill and I were discussing (rotary rpms, present in the original Oberursel manual). His interest would be in the manual, since he has the Le Rhônes.

I doubt that engine testing can be reasonably done without referencing „official“ ratings. But if I can get a hold of that book, it will still be a surprise what really is featured. Best case, it contains official recommendations.

[Chill31]

5 hours ago, Hellbender said:

...and last but not least, to keep this topic somewhat on track, do you fly with a parachute?

 

Because if you don't, you should. We can't risk losing you, you're too valuable!

 

haha, I've yet to produce anything of value!  But yes, I do!  Mostly for the undesirable even of an in-flight fire...My chute is a modern seat pack emergency parachute that weighs about 15 lbs.  I'm not sure where one would place 60 lbs of parachute in the cockpit...sitting on my chute leaves me sitting about 2 inches too high in the seat, which isn't a big deal, but it does leave me hanging out in the wind a lot more as well as requires me to lean down to aim down the gun sights.

 

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

They mention it here, just two posts down the thread message you quoted. I should think of it being a reprint of collected reports (Adlershof Documents) from the Militärwissenschaftliche Abteilung (something like the Technische Amt later on) about engine research during WW1. DeChamps seemed to have used them for his book. Supposedly. 

 

Koloman says this in post #34:

hallo,
a lot of the adlershof documents was used directly for the kutzbach dechamps book. dechamps worked for adlershof testcenter during the war,probably kutzbach too.this books published in the 1920´s are in most cases the only source of original datas as a lot of them fell to the attention of the usaf and raf later on.
 

I bought the book on amazon.  It is in German though.  I don't know any technical German, and my conversational German is rusty.  Google translate to the rescue??

[Chill31]

On 2/13/2019 at 4:59 PM, SeaW0lf said:

 

I think it was more about the wear and tear, no power output, but Vintage Aviator is the only people out there that do not answer any queries ? (I made two over the years). But I have received wonderful and detailed information from various airman. I think they all love to talk about their rides, which they built with such passion (I would too).

The TVAL Oberursel/Rhone numbers...

 

594ft/lb and 144HP @1280 rpm  from our 110 Le Rhone

[SP1969]

Chill, not related to this topic, but may I ask a question?

 

When you fly, how much of the oil used blows back over the aeroplane and how easy is it to clean?

 

Thanks in advance

[HagarTheHorrible]

The only place parachutes make even the remotest sense is in an off-line campaign.  In multiplayer they are utterly superfluous.  The Refly button is the only parachute you need and the last time I looked that was available to both sides.  For the effect they have on combat outcomes they make no difference.  The aggressor gets a kill regardless of whether the victim going down as a flaming comet or on the end of a bit of silk and as for the victim, they just hit the restart button.  Anyone arguing about purity of experience would presumably happily uninstall the game and never fly again or better still have their wife, or partner, hit them over the head with a frying pan, the force dependant on severity of ingame injury.

[SP1969]

 

 

Full real settings applied.

[Chill31]

1 hour ago, SP1969 said:

Chill, not related to this topic, but may I ask a question?

 

When you fly, how much of the oil used blows back over the aeroplane and how easy is it to clean?

 

Thanks in advance

 

I don't know from personal experience, but it seems quite a lot gets on the landing gear, belly, and wings. Watch here starting at 7:20

 

 

[SP1969]

Thank you Chill, most instructive and answered my question, I think.