Fokker D.VIIF?

[BMA_Hellbender]

38 minutes ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

I was wondering about how many D.VII F's were actually available for combat during WWI. All my research indicates that the number was extremely small. J2 or 5 fully equipped?

 

No idea about an exact number, but very few indeed. It will be the mainstay Fokker D.VII in Flying Circus regardless, as it performs well at altitude, which is what the Fokker D.VII was known for. This is currently not possible with our "early" Fokker D.VII.

 

 

Quote

At least 30 engines appear to be set aside for testing on various airframes going by the aircraft being tested and allowing for spares in case of prop strikes/damage (which required an immediate engine overhaul/repairs). A further number, around 80 or more, were reportedly sent to Pfalz for the construction of Pfalz D XII's.

 

Wingnut Wings is of the belief few if any Pfalz D.XII's were actually fitted with BMW engines in the Jastas and only Pfalz D.XII 1387/18 was actually equipped with the BMW and tested in the 2nd fighter competition during mid 1918 (WnW only know of one photo of a BMW equipped D.XII but I don't know the serial number). 

 

The Pfalz D.XII never flew with the BMW IIIa engine. It is a (necessary) fiction committed by the Rise of Flight devs as the Pfalz D.XII with a stock 180hp (officially 175hp) D.IIIa engine was performing even worse than the Pfalz D.IIIa with said engine, and I believe they had not yet fully researched the 200hp (officially 180hp) D.IIIau back then. Instead we got the BMW IIIa, which was already present on the Fokker D.VIIF.

 

 

Quote

Additionally I was reading a French report on a captured Fokker D.VII and this aircraft was equipped with a stock D.III engine (160hp).

 

I've read about those as well, they would have been Albatros license-built deployed in small numbers in April 1918 with the 160hp Mercedes D.III engine. Additionally there were a few 180hp (officially 175hp) Mercedes D.IIIa deployed by Fokker in April and early May (the one available in Flying Circus right now), though the main production Fokker D.VII had already undergone the overcompression engine modification by the time it left the factory.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hellbender

[J2_Trupobaw]

The 160, 180 and 200 hp versions of Mercedes D.III were not visually distinguishable without disassembly, and all had the same plaque saying Mercedes D.III 160 hp.  This caused lot of confusion with captured planes being reported to have 160 hp engine regardless of what variant they used. 

Maintenance of Mercedes D.IIIx engines included routinely taking them back to Flugpark for overhaul, and  from spring 1918 overhaul of 180hp units included upgrade to overcompressed version. So these 180hp D.VIIs served only until first engine swap, then became 200hp D.VIIs.

Edited March 19, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[=IRFC=Gecko]

 

Regarding the D.XII never having flown with a BMW engine in this I'm sorry you are very wrong as the Pfalz D.XII 1387/18 was tested with it. Favourably against the D.VIIF with the same engine. As fast as the D.VIIF, the downside was it was heavier on the controls and though faster in the dive (either version v the D.VII) it was far less manoeuvrable.

 

As for the engines set aside for Pfalz , documentation exists outside of RoF (which I would never use as a source anyway). TVAL has evidence that at least one if not more D XII's were indeed fitted with BMW engines as per the historical photographs they have sighted. No proof that these were allocated to any sqn exists as far as I can find but once again that doesn't mean they weren't as German documentation at the end of the war was lost/destroyed or just non existent.

 

Trupo you are correct but also wrong at the same time - as base D.III model engines certainly did get an upgrade (eventually) all models of the engine have different external fittings on them. So even though the Base D.III engine block and Cylinder casings are the same each engine can be identified by it's external fittings including plumbing .

D.III 160hp  has a different water pump and plumbing to the cylinders and a different air pump fitting attachment which is vertical but visibly thinner and taller on the number one cylinder than both the D.IIIa and D.IIIau.

D.IIIa 180hp utilises different water pump and plumbing to the 160 but the same layout of piping to the D.IIIau. Once again the forward air pump fitting on the number one cylinder is different than both other engines being vertical but shorter and fatter than that of the 160hp which is tall and thin.

D.IIIau 200hp has a horizontal air pump attachment to the number one cylinder. It also has additional water pipe plumbing that runs along the intake manifold casing.

D.IIIau engines produced also were noted as having the engine number painted on the front of the first cylinder and a red ring around each cylinder to show it was over compressed (These were not always painted onto upgraded engines though the red cylinder ring was supposed to be done to denote the over compression).

Additionally the rear of the au engine sump case is visibly different in design than both the stock D.III and D.IIIa.

 

I'm sure that those inspecting these aircraft were very much looking for differences in engines and most certainly as intelligence officers noted such changes in the reports they produced.

The visible difference in historical photos supplied also clearly indicate that some Fokker D.VII aircraft certainly flew with the stock D.III engine - the air pump is clearly visible as it sticks out substantially in the photographs.

 

Regards Shot.

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by =TM=I_Got_Shot
Crap spelling

[HagarTheHorrible]

Evidently the 180 is plumper than the 160   “D.IIIau utilises different water pump and plumping” ......... or at least so he says, I call it middle aged spread.  ??

Edited March 19, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

TVAL has evidence that at least one if not more D XII's were indeed fitted with BMW engines as per the historical photographs they have sighted. No proof that these were allocated to any sqn exists as far as I can find but once again that doesn't mean they weren't as German documentation at the end of the war was lost/destroyed or just non existent.

 

That's fair enough.

 

Whether what we have right now (at least in RoF) saw operational status or not, a BMW IIIa engine is more representative of late war overcompression used in German planes than a standard 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa. I would still prefer to have as many engine variants as possible, including for example a Fokker F.I (Dreidecker prototype) with a captured Le Rhone 9J engine, which Werner Voss would fly on his faithful flight.

 

After all, Flying Circus is far more of a combat flightsim than a true study sim (such as DCS) or a historical study with simplified flight models (such as WOFF). In other words: the more variation the better.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hellbender

[Archie]

How does the oxygen system work?  I've only had a few minutes messing around with the F but even at high alt the pilot still had his scarf on, didn't see an oxygen mask modelled in f2 view even though the sound effects of the pilot breathing were there.

[LukeFF]

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/154/dev-blog-89/

[Archie]

45 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/154/dev-blog-89/

It was more the breathing mask I was thinking of, I'm sure I saw a pic of an F pilot with a breathing tube (or did I imagine it!)

[AndyJWest]

15 minutes ago, Archie said:

It was more the breathing mask I was thinking of, I'm sure I saw a pic of an F pilot with a breathing tube (or did I imagine it!)

 

This one?

[=IRFC=Gecko]

 

Yep I plumped that one.

 

So we now have a mostly mythical Oxygen system (carried in fighters) for the D.VII fighter class. Once again I hope that the weight will be added to the aircraft and I can't wait to see the confetti produced when the LOX bottle or hoses are severed by an incendiary round (of course it's not actually modelled I'm sure).

 

Regards Shot

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

OMFG.  "Oxygen?  ADDWEOGHT!"

 

But don't worry about that 195kph camel...

 

Lol yes I am still sore about our slow-poke pfalz.

Edited March 20, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[=IRFC=Gecko]

 

195kmh Camel - yes it is to fast 184km (115mph) is the far more accepted maximum speed. For me I would still accept the Camel in this 184kmh range as perfectly usable. But note and here is where you really need to pay attention - if the Camel is doing 115mph then your beloved Dr.1 will be doing substantially less as has been proven and stated by TVAL pilots who fly both aircraft.

 

The constant quoting of Entente pilots about how slow the Camel is, is in direct comparison to the Camels contemporary Entente aircraft those being the SE.5a and the Spad XIII. So yes the Camel is slower. Speed difference between a Camel and an Albatros varies between the Alabtros being 1mph faster for the D.V series to being 9mph slower (according to TVAL) depending on which books you read and what source material you have. The Camel is constantly quoted as being between 112mph to 117mph once again depending on what sources you use (and as much as 121mph with the Bentley). The Pfalz D.IIIa being no faster than the Albatros D.V series. What we really need here is the faster Roland D.VIa and VI.b.

 

Though the au engine assisted German fighters were superior above 10.000/12.000 feet if they were below it they had no advantage over the Camel other than a very minor speed advantage and the tactical position they held. Knowing that the D.VII top speed was 124mph it to was susceptible to being shot down by Camels under 10.000 feet depending again on tactical position, the lower you go the more of an advantage the Camel will gain.

The fact that Camels shot down quite a few D.VII's should give you some idea that though slower it still accounted for the very best of Central aircraft. Similar to the much slower Dr.1 shooting down Spads, SE.5a's and Camels - it all comes down to the tactical situation at the commencement of the engagement and the decisions made by the pilots at the time - nothing more nothing less.

 

Quite  simply put if you choose to engage a Camel in it's comfort zone below 10.000 feet then more fool you especially if you choose to try turning with it. Don't bother quoting engines at me I have done a fair bit of research into the Camel engine and the Clerget 9Bf upgrade kit was available to sqns long before the production Bf engines arrived. The BF being only 5hp short of the Bentley. Other nomenclature on engine horsepower is in fact what the manufacturer believed it would produce not what it did actually produce. So take that into account when quoting 110hp Gnome etc because they weren't actually 110hp.

 

What we ultimately have here is a stats war - but it depends on what/who you choose to use as your preferred stat/source to argue your case. I'll go with those who actually fly the aircraft with the real engines.

 

You may also want to put into context that with the game most of the fighting is happening well within the most advantageous parameters for the Camel. Hence it gets the Uber tag because those flying against it are constantly fighting it where it has the advantage. So yes a good Camel Pilot will hand you your arse on a plate. Take them higher or don't engage them unless booming and zooming them and maintaining your height advantage. Otherwise it's all your risk so don't get annoyed at the Camel pilots for tactical errors.

 

Regards Shot

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Relax, I was poking fun at the oxygen weight comment.

 

You'll be fine if the aircraft is missing a few kg or the oxygen doesn't "confetti" when it gets hit.

 

For all the reasons you listed.

 

I don't have any problem shooting down (lone) camels, because I already fly like an absolute bitch.

Edited March 20, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Zooropa_Fly]

3 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

Relax, I was poking fun at the oxygen weight comment.

 

You'll be fine if the aircraft is missing a few kg or the oxygen doesn't "confetti" when it gets hit.

 

For all the reasons you listed.

 

I don't have any problem shooting down (lone) camels, because I already fly like an absolute bitch.

 

 

Next time I see you, will make sure you get the hump !!!

[Darkowl]

If anyone is interested in the used oxygen system, it was manufactured from Ahrendt & Heylandt.

There is a part of the manual as a pdf in the link.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/instrumente/katalog 1WK/diverses/diverses.htm

It doesn't refer to oxygen instead it says liquid air.

I don't now how high planes flew 1918 but 100% oxygen will only be needed at 30 000 ft and above.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Darkowl
Typo

[beresford]

A couple of 'F' questions.

 

1. The supplied stats say that the high altitude throttle shouldn't be used below a certain altitude but bizarrely doesn't say what this altitude IS.

 

2. I have mapped Rshift  - & = to the throttle because the F doesn't have variable pitch, but when I operate this nothing happens, no visible movement in the cockpit or text on the right side of the screen. What am I doing wrong?

[J5_Gamecock]

3 minutes ago, beresford said:

A couple of 'F' questions.

 

1. The supplied stats say that the high altitude throttle shouldn't be used below a certain altitude but bizarrely doesn't say what this altitude IS.

 

2. I have mapped Rshift  - & = to the throttle because the F doesn't have variable pitch, but when I operate this nothing happens, no visible movement in the cockpit or text on the right side of the screen. What am I doing wrong?

 The alt. throttle can be increased in stages according to your altitude. Good rule of thumb is to increase it about 25% for each 500 meters of alt.( 25% at 500 meters, 50% at 1K etc.) You CAN use it anytime, but it will cause engine damage with prolonged misuse.

 

  Not sure why your mapping isn't working. Perhaps you need to hit the key repeatedly?   I use a slider myself, since there is no mixture control needed on the F, I just sub that out for the Alt. throttle.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I go 1/3 open on alt throttle for every 500m.

 

Below 500m treat it like emergency power; you have about 3 minutes full open.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

2 hours ago, beresford said:

. The supplied stats say that the high altitude throttle shouldn't be used below a certain altitude but bizarrely doesn't say what this altitude IS. 

it turned on to high if it's knocking...increase in stages as Game suggests.

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Darkowl said:

I don't now how high planes flew 1918 but 100% oxygen will only be needed at 30 000 ft and above.

The system uses on purpose liquified air, nitrigen and oxygen etc., as saftey precaution. They even put pictures of shot O2 canisters in the manual to illustrate the problem.

 

Liquid air is less problematic there and since the tank is nothing but a common thermos bottle, not much happens to it besides just breaking if it gets shot and inside is basically what is outside as well, just more of it.

 

What the apparatus does is basically collecting most of the oxygen fraction of liquid air and letting that pre warm in the piping system. It is a very simple system of fractioning by distillation using the liquid air obtained through the Linde process.

 

They thought this was a better way to regulate oxygen flow as common valves used on pressurized canisters as were used by the Entente.

[beresford]

7 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 The alt. throttle can be increased in stages according to your altitude. Good rule of thumb is to increase it about 25% for each 500 meters of alt.( 25% at 500 meters, 50% at 1K etc.) You CAN use it anytime, but it will cause engine damage with prolonged misuse.

 

  Not sure why your mapping isn't working. Perhaps you need to hit the key repeatedly?   I use a slider myself, since there is no mixture control needed on the F, I just sub that out for the Alt. throttle.

Thanks guys. I'll do a bit more experimentation on the throttle.

[BMA_Hellbender]

When your engine catches fire, explodes and violently tears the plane apart, throttle back about 5%.

[beresford]

OK, I've solved it. Since I was experimenting using 'Quick Mission', most of the defaults were still on. This includes something called 'Throttle Autolimit', which prevents the High Altitude throttle from operating no matter what you assign. I don't know if it would release the throttle once it decided you were at sufficient altitude.

[JG1_Rotermann]

Just because

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, =AVG77=REDMAN said:

Just because 

it can bite back!

[JG1_Rotermann]

nice

 

[migmadmarine]

According to Requiem's D.VIIF video from ROF, you should increase the altitude throttle by 1/3rd at 500, 1000, and 1500 meters. @beresford

[US103_Baer]

On 3/16/2019 at 9:52 AM, J5_Bender said:

Going by RoF store figures, the Fokker D.VIIF has a top speed of 194km/h compared to 190km/h on the D.VII. Both will (probably) end up being 4km/h faster in FC, 194km/h on the D.VII we already know — so I would expect 198km/h on the Fokker D.VIIF. This makes it marginally faster than the Camel at sea level, where it honestly shouldn't be fighting it, and more than likely considerably faster at 3000m, in the neighbourhood of 30km/h.

 

EDIT: With altitude throttle fully engaged I can reach 204km/h at sea level in the RoF D.VIIF, so we might indeed get around 208km/h at sea level in FC (with altitude throttle fully engaged, actively damaging the engine).

 

On 3/20/2019 at 8:25 AM, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

I believe I called 208?

 

Hang on. Is the FC D7f getting different specs to the RoF one?

The store states 194kph top speed at sea level and people are getting 208kph?!! That's a helluva jump.

Yet the Spad says 220kph and gets.....219kph

 

Can someone explain that, is it all just Alt Throttle or is it significantly faster without AT as well? How long until the engine blows using AT down low?

 

I realise the Camel is 195 actual vs 190 in store and i think we all agree it could be lowered. But that D7f seems a mad jump for a plane that really doesn't need any help.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by US103_Baer

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

 

 

Hang on. Is the FC D7f getting different specs to the RoF one?

It states 194kph top speed at sea level and people are getting 208kph?!! That's a helluva jump.

Yet the Spad says 220kph and gets.....219kph

 

Can someone explain how that works, is it all just Alt Throttle or is it significantly faster without AT as well? How long until the engine blows using AT down low?

 

I realise the Camel is 195 actual vs 190 in store and happy for a reduce. But that D7f seems a mad jump for a plane that really doesn't need any help.

 

 

194km/h is speed at sea level without altitude throttle. From some testing I did just now, it's actually closer to 196km/h, or about 1km/h faster than the Camel. 

 

As for how long until it blows, you are welcome to find out ?

 

I find that you can safely apply some altitude throttle even at sea level, around 15-20%. Always be on the lookout for the audio cue. Some very slight knocking will probably not damage the engine within a meaningful amount of time. This puts her top speed at around 200km/h at sea level. That said, a 5km/h advantage on the Camel is nothing, and I recommend you don't engage them below 2000m, preferrably 3000m.

 

 

As for RoF, the SPAD's actual top speed is 214km/h at sea level, so she's exactly 5km/h faster in Flying Circus.

 

 

 

Personally I think the Camel is fine if we consider her as historically a 188km/h machine, she's 7km/h too fast.

 

It's the German scouts which are likely all a bit too slow, save for the Fokker D.VII and Fokker D.VIIF. I believe that the original developers of the RoF FMs may have missed the fact that most top speed for German scouts as found in German Aircraft of the First World War by Peter Gray & Owen Thetford (1962) are listed at 3000-4000m, though not for all planes, which is where the confusion may have come from. Perhaps this was also lost in translation to Russian.

 

 

For reference:

 

Fokker D.VII (186km/h at 1000m)

 

 

 

Fokker Dr.I (165km/h at 4000m):

 

 

 

Pfalz D.IIIa (165km/h at 3000m)

 

 

 

Halberstadt CL.II (165km/h at 5000m)

 

 

 

 

Albatros D.Va (165km/h without altitude specified, but it is technically impossible that it would be slower than the Pfalz D.IIIa or Halberstadt CL.II)

 

 

 

 

This would place the top speed of all the Mercedes D.IIIa planes at around 180-195km/h at sea level (very rough estimate), which is true at least for the Fokker D.VII in FC.

 

 

Now before you start jumping to conclusions and demanding people's heads, please understand that much of the data is sketchy at best and that there is a great deal of confusion between engine types, fitted propellers and other real world variables. Chiefest of all, the apparent lack of distinction made between a 160hp Mercedes D.III, a 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa and the field-modded overcompressed "200hp" Mercedes D.IIIa"u" (unofficial designation). For example, the Halberstadt CL.II is listed at 165km/h at 5000m with a 160hp Mercedes D.III, which seems implausible compared to a Pfalz D.IIIa performing the same with the same engine (or better) at 3000m. Also, the Oberursel Ur.II on the Fokker Dr.I we know didn't perform as well as the Le Rhone 9J fitted on the prototype Fokker F.I, due to the use of Voltol Ersatz oil.

 

 

More pragmatically in Flying Circus, there is also the issue of bullet spread (or lack thereof), the Fokker D.VII not correctly overrevving in unpowered dives and the Pfalz having an extremely tough airframe in dives (up to 9g), even compared to the average full cantilever World War II machine. So airspeed really isn't everything and it shouldn't stop you from enjoying a good dogfight. That said, without wanting to incite anything, I'll admit that having some extra dev time to look at these old birds would be more than welcome, provided the data is properly analysed first and sanity checks are made.

 

Finally, I do beg that people please don't listen to me, personally, as I cannot claim to be anything but an armchair historian (though I'm steadily becoming a bonafide flightsim forum historian  — I'm keeping record of everything).

Edited April 11, 2019 by J5_Bender

[Zooropa_Fly]

Yeah but you fly real planes so we all take your opinions seriously

 

S!

[US103_Baer]

1 hour ago, J5_Bender said:

 

194km/h is speed at sea level without altitude throttle. From some testing I did just now, it's actually closer to 196km/h, or about 1km/h faster than the Camel. 

 

As for how long until it blows, you are welcome to find out ?

 

 

All good points (and data!) and i realise in a scrap its more about energy relativity etc, but speed, climb and acceleration do make a difference especially in pre-engagement maneouvers or exits.

I tested just now and got the D7f to 199kph without altitude throttle, then 208kph with it on full. The Spad got to 218kph

 

I guess my main point though, is what data/specs are being used for FC? All we have to go on is the data in RoF and the stated references there.

And if that's the case then a 220kph Spad is appropriate, but a 199/208kph D7f doesn't seem to be.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by US103_Baer

[SeaW0lf]

56 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

I guess my main point though, is what data/specs are being used for FC? All we have to go on is the data in RoF and the stated references there.

And if that's the case then a 220kph Spad is appropriate, but a 199/208kph D7f doesn't seem to be.

 

They are suposedly porting the same flight models. What happens in FC is that the planes behave diferently from map to map (temperature). The speeds also change with temperature, increasing as the temperature drops. The atmosphere phisics regarding temperature, pressure, are better (or present in FC).

 

To prove it, I tested these planes with the same International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) and they gain the same amount of speed when ported to FC. IIRC, about 2%. Except the Camel, since she was rolled back to pre 2104 patch. The Pfalz is also with the same speed of the pre 2014 patch (gaining 2% in FC). Regarding the latter, I wonder if she was rolled back as well, because the speed increase of 2% (IIRC), as I said, matches the pre 2014 patch. Since they are not tweaking anything and flight models are supposed to be very hard to tweak, she might indeed being rolled back. But I never flew her back in the days, so I can't tell.

 

But I recommend people to do these tests always with the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA). I think it is the Mission Builder standard when you start building one. And you don't have any variation in ROF from map to map (I guess there is no simulation for temperature, pressure, perhaps only for engine temperature?).

 

Hence why we always say the planes behave / feel better (especially with my FFB in my opinion). Nowadays when I go back to ROF, the difference in feel is very pronounced (for worse).

Edited April 11, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[US103_Baer]

39 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

They are suposedly porting the same flight models. What happens in FC is that the planes behave diferently from map to map (temperature). The speeds also change with temperature, increasing as the temperature drops. The atmosphere phisics regarding temperature, pressure, are better (or present in FC).

...................

 

But I recommend people to do these tests always with the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA). I think it is the Mission Builder standard when you start building one. And you don't have any variation in ROF from map to map (I guess there is no simulation for temperature, pressure, perhaps only for engine temperature?).

 

 

That explains much of the difference we see in-game FC vs RoF (and i do use your test mission for RoF), but doesn't address the variations against the stated references.

I guess it's possible to argue we're generally closer to reference specs in FC than RoF, but the D7f at 199/208 (194kph stated ref) and Camel at 195 (190kph stated ref) do seem out. BTW, do you get 199kph at msl for the D7f without AT?

 

Anyway, i don't want to trigger anyone. I just hadn't realised the D7f received such a jump in speed over stated specs. Will leave it at that for now.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by US103_Baer

[BMA_Hellbender]

Only the Fokker Dr.I currently doesn’t match the old RoF data. That is to say: it’s using the post-1.034 model which limits its RPM to 1200 and hence its top speed at sea level to 165km/h, exactly the same as in RoF (so not even a 5km/h speed difference found on other planes).

 

Still, there is a possibility its FM will be reviewed before release, but as always no guarantees.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

but doesn't address the variations against the stated references.

 

I think what happens is that they already stated that they don't have time to make tweaks. If the BOX engine gives a boost in speed for all planes with the same percentage, they kind of have to just accept it. We can argue about the Camel (too fast) and the Pfalz (too slow), but the other planes are getting a bump accordingly. So if the D7F is getting a bump, so the Spad. Now if the Spad in ROF is wrong, then it is another story. I think for now we are stuck with FMs from before and after the 2014 patch. 

 

I'll check the D7F later, but I think that I was getting the same number other people were getting.

 

1 hour ago, J5_Bender said:

Only the Fokker Dr.I currently doesn’t match the old RoF data. That is to say: it’s using the post-1.034 model which limits its RPM to 1200 and hence its top speed at sea level to 165km/h, exactly the same as in RoF (so not even a 5km/h speed difference found on other planes).

 

Still, there is a possibility its FM will be reviewed before release, but as always no guarantees.

 

I think the Dr.1 is getting the same 2% boost in BOX. I had a post about it (the boost the planes are getting here) but I don't know where it is. But yes, it is too slow in comparison with the Camel or the data we find online. I guess we'll have to wait for Chill to start testing his engines. I think I saw a video of Mikael Carlson's Fokker Dr.I and she was going over 170km/h at cruise speed (I think he goes at 1100rpm) with his Le Rhône 110.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[BMA_Hellbender]

37 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I think the Dr.1 is getting the same 2% boost in BOX. I had a post about it (the boost the planes are getting here) but I don't know where it is. But yes, it is too slow in comparison with the Camel or the data we find online. I guess we'll have to wait for Chill to start testing his engines. I think I saw a video of Mikael Carlson's Fokker Dr.I and she was going over 170km/h at cruise speed (I think he goes at 1100rpm) with his Le Rhône 110.

 

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. They can't just increase the Fokker Dr.I's RPM to 1400 and call it a day, it needs to perform better at its current RPM, which means an FM change rather than a quick fix. Here's hoping!

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

But I recommend people to do these tests always with the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA). I think it is the Mission Builder standard when you start building one.

 

You also have ISA when choosing an autumn map in Quick Mission mode. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by LukeFF

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, J5_Bender said:

it needs to perform better at its current RPM

 

I disagree; the RPM is too low in BOX (a bit below 1300rpm). The Oberursel original manual says you can go to 1380rpm to get more power. The D8 tested at McCook Field in 1921 was running at 1390rpm at sea level.

 

I really wish we could get planes that match the factory rpm. 

 

If Chill confirms that the Dr.I is a 175km/h (ish) plane as he said in the past, and his FSX model has the same 179km/h of the old ROF flight model, there is no reason to cap its max speed in BOX (if they roll her back) if all the planes are getting a boost. To cap some planes and let others go lose in BOX is not the best approach. What they could tweak on the Dr.I is the lack of degrading performance with altitude. If they give the old ROF Dr.I an altitude performance curve alike the Camel, we might be close to a good flight model. 

 

But we can't say much about the Dr.I because Chill might prove us wrong in a few months. I imagine the devs are also waiting for his words on the new Le Rhônes and Clerget (we are a lucky bunch, really). 

 

14 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

You also have ISA when choosing an autumn map in Quick Mission mode. 

 

Cool, I'll check.

Edited April 11, 2019 by SeaW0lf