S.E.5a and Albatros D.Va are here

[B12]

And Me262 with other stuff, downloading now.
 

Hope we get the dedicated WW1 map soon

[US103_Baer]

Everyone see this?

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Alb is a dog with fleas.

 

Like the Se5 tho. Seems to turn a little better than RoF counterpart. Still got  a lot of wing failures when shooting it down.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, Klugermann said:

Alb is a dog with fleas.

 

Like the Se5 tho. Seems to turn a little better than RoF counterpart. Still got  a lot of wing failures when shooting it down.

 

I think the SE5a is great, and while you can still lose a wing under heavy fire, it's a rarity compared to RoF. Overall it's very nice.

 

Then, notwithstanding my unfaltering crusade for getting correct 1918 engine variants, the Albatros is just a ludicrous machine. Not saying that they stand the slightest chance against a human pilot who knows how to maintain his energy, but against the AI you can pull off low speed stunts which a Dolphin could only dream about.

 

Me: "Hey, Alby, we're right above the treetops with literally no speed and we have a supercharged super pissed off tommy diving in. How about some evasive scissors followed by a quick split s and prophang to end up on his tail right as he passes by?"

 

D.Va: "I got you fam."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

FYI Hellbender,   Gamecock was so disgusted he puked in his sim pit while flying the DVa last night.

[BMA_Hellbender]

You sure it wasn't the schnapps?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

No, he was upset that I was taunting him as I was flying away in the Se5 after I put a few rounds in him. 

 

I told him to go get his shine box.

[Enceladus828]

They’re already on Rise of Flight and I like them better on that game than on Flying Circus

 

P.S. IL-2: Flying Circus should be renamed IL-2: Great Air War, or something similar because the Flying Circus aka J.G.1 only operated in the late/latter part of WW1 on the Western Front.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

P.S. IL-2: Flying Circus should be renamed IL-2: Great Air War, or something similar because the Flying Circus aka J.G.1 only operated in the late/latter part of WW1 on the Western Front.

 

LOL, no. They aren't going to change the name halfway through the development process.

[Cynic_Al]

15 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

 

IL-2: Flying Circus should be renamed IL-2: Great Air War, or something similar because the Flying Circus aka J.G.1 only operated in the late/latter part of WW1 on the Western Front.

 

Surely the current aircraft are entirely consistent with that period.

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Surely the current aircraft are entirely consistent with that period.

And they are. My point was regarding an entire series (multiple volumes) from 1916-18, Western and Eastern fronts. The current plane set for Vol.1 are perfectly consistent with the title, Flying Circus. 

[DD_Arthur]

17 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

They’re already on Rise of Flight and I like them better on that game than on Flying Circus

 

How would you know?  You haven't got Flying Circus.....

[SYN_Vander]

23 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I think the SE5a is great, and while you can still lose a wing under heavy fire, it's a rarity compared to RoF. Overall it's very nice.

 

Then, notwithstanding my unfaltering crusade for getting correct 1918 engine variants, the Albatros is just a ludicrous machine. Not saying that they stand the slightest chance against a human pilot who knows how to maintain his energy, but against the AI you can pull off low speed stunts which a Dolphin could only dream about.

 

Me: "Hey, Alby, we're right above the treetops with literally no speed and we have a supercharged super pissed off tommy diving in. How about some evasive scissors followed by a quick split s and prophang to end up on his tail right as he passes by?"

 

D.Va: "I got you fam."

 

 

Maybe not entirely consistent with this report from Patrick Gordon Taylor who flew a captured Albatros Dva, I grant you:

 

Quote

Laterally it was quite light, but when I steepened the turn and tried to pull the machine around with the elevator it seemed very heavy, putting up a resistance to the turn. I could see why the Albatros pilots kept out of the close duelling turns... Then I let the nose go down. The speed built up steadily, giving me the impression that the heavy Albatros would go on accelerating indefinitely, drawn on by the power of its engine, unopposed by the beautiful, streamlined fuselage. It was fast, and that was obvious. As far as I could judge, its maximum speed was about 125 mph; perhaps a little more.

 

And this one by James McCudden:

 

Quote

On November 5th [1917] I went to Hendon with Captain Clive Collett to fly a V-strutter Albatros which he had for demonstration purposes, and I had a nice ride in it, but I could not think how the German pilots could maneuver them so well, for they were certainly not easy to handle.

 

Although he admits the Germans could maneuver them well  

Edited June 13, 2019 by SYN_Vander

[Sgt_Joch]

problem with anecdotes is that you can find one to support any argument:

 

1. 

Quote

"The D V is so obsolete and so ridiculously inferior to the English that one can't do anything with this aircraft. But the people at home have not bought anything new for almost a year, except for this lousy Albatros, and we have remained stuck with the D III."

 

-Manfred von Richtofen, in a july 18, 1917 letter to his friend Fritz von Falkenhayn.

 

2.

Quote

2nd lieutenant Reginald Hoidge, 56 squadron RFC, talking about the first generation SE5 to arrive in april 1917:

"… in those days it did about 110 mph over the ground; this was about 10 mph faster than the V-strutter Albatros - and that's what mattered!"

 

100 mph is around 165 kmh which is the "official" top speed of the d.III/d.V

 

3.

 

Quote

"In the past four weeks three new types of enemy aircraft have appeared.
They are without a doubt far superior in their ability to climb than the best DV.
They are the new English SE5 single-seater, the 200hp SPAD and
the very outstanding Bristol Fighter two-seater.
While the Albatros DIII and DV come near in their ability to climb with the Sopwith
and Nieuport, and even surpass them in speed, it is almost impossible for them to force
an SE5 or a 200hp SPAD to fight because the enemy is able to avoid it by the ability of
his craft to outclimb the Albatros."

quote from the German ace Adolf Ritter Von Tutschek from his memoirs Stürme und Luftsiege written in late 1917. He left the front after he was wounded on august 11, 1917.

 

take away from the quote:

1. the Alb. D.III and D.V had similar climb rate/speed;
2. the Sopwith Pup and Nieuport 17 had a slightly better climb rate than the Alb. D.III/V;
3. the Alb. D.III/V were slightly faster than the N.17 and Pup;
4. the SPAD VII, SE5 and Bristol F2B all had much better climb rates than the Alb. D.III/V

Edited June 13, 2019 by Sgt_Joch

[SYN_Vander]

Well all these quotes seem to paint a pretty consistent picture... My quotes were specifically about the handling of the Albatros, not it's top speed.

[SeaW0lf]

It would be interesting to ask The Vintage Aviator if they use real data for their descriptions (vide below, I think they are talking about the D3 at 109mph).

 

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Sgt_Joch]

 

109 mph is 175 kmh which is the "official" top speed of the D.II:

 

1. aircraft profile on D.I-D.III

 

 

2. Aircraft profile on D.V:

 

since the D.II to D.V had similar weight and powerplant, you could expect similar performance. You could probably justify 175 kmh top speed on a D.Va with a mercedes D.IIIa engine.

 

note however that when comparing the Alb. D.II and D.III, the D.II is faster, but has a lower climb rate. This "could" indicate that the D.II was using a prop with a pitch biased for speed while the D.III was using a prop biased for climb. I say could since these books were written 50 years after WW1 so they could be mixing results from different planes.

 

3. here is the SE5a:

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Sgt_Joch

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

take away from the quote:

1. the Alb. D.III and D.V had similar climb rate/speed;
2. the Sopwith Pup and Nieuport 17 had a slightly better climb rate than the Alb. D.III/V;
3. the Alb. D.III/V were slightly faster than the N.17 and Pup;
4. the SPAD VII, SE5 and Bristol F2B all had much better climb rates than the Alb. D.III/V

 

I think it almost certain that the 'Sopworth' referred to is the Camel rather than the Pup.  

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joch said:

since the D.II to D.V had similar weight and powerplant, you could expect similar performance. You could probably justify 175 kmh top speed on a D.Va with a mercedes D.IIIa engine.

 

note however that when comparing the Alb. D.II and D.III, the D.II is faster, but has a lower climb rate. This "could" indicate that the D.II was using a prop with a pitch biased for speed while the D.III was using a prop biased for climb. I say could since these books were written 50 years after WW1 so they could be mixing results from different planes.

 

 

These figures from Osprey, Windsock and Profile publications are all taken straight from German Aircraft of the First World War, which in turn got the data from two German historians, as I mentioned in my post in the other thread. I haven't been able to track down an actual primary source.

 

 

The main issue is that some Mercedes D.IIIa powered planes have their top speed mentioned at a specific altitude.

 

Pfalz D.IIIa: 102.5mph at 10,000ft (165km/h at 3000m), 91.5mph at 15,000ft (147km/h at 4500m) -- most likely a captured plane

Fokker D.VII (Mercedes D.IIIa): 114.1mph at 6560ft (182.5km/h at 2000m) -- 100% certainly a captured plane, it says so in the book

Halberstadt CL.II: 103.12mph at 16,400ft (165km/h at 5000m!!) -- maybe a captured plane

 

 

It's that last one that made me realise there must truly be something wrong with the measurements here, yet so oddly specific and precise.

 

So, I think I may have solved it, and it's definitely not the answer I was looking for. Confirmation bias is a bitch.

 

True Airspeed

 

 

For the not so aerodynamically inclined: the actual speed with which the wing moves through the surrounding medium, which you can calculate for a known pressure altitude and outside air temperature (density altitude) and not just the dynamic air pressure, which is what an airspeed indicator, well, indicates. As a rule of thumb, the higher your altitude, the greater the difference between IAS and TAS, since the air gets less and less dense. This is why planes tend to fly high (among other reasons), even though their airspeed indicates lower.

 

 

Using a very rough calculator which uses an outside air temperature estimation instead of using the actual ISA and correct OAT following the adiabatic lapse rate (Jesus Christ, I'm getting exam flashbacks already):

 

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html (this uses knots and feet but you can input km/h and feet all the same)

 

Pfalz D.IIIa: 165km/h TAS at 10000ft (3000m) = 138km/h IAS

Fokker D.VII: 182.5km/h TAS at 6560ft (2000m) = 163km/h IAS

Halberstadt CL.II: 165km/h TAS at 16400ft = 125km/h IAS

 

Yeah, I'm going to call this mystery solved. It even matches within 5-10km/h with RoF pre-1.034 and Flying Circus.

 

Those damn British and their precise measurements. Assuming all those measurements are indeed from the British on captured aircraft, because who else would even think of using TAS for anything other than flight planning?

 

 

Again, I could be wrong about this, but I also don't believe for a second that a Halberstadt could reach 165km/h indicated at 5000m (same as the Fokker D.VIIF), overcompression or not.

 

Let it be known that I still expect those overcompressed engine variants for the Albatros, Pfalz and D.VII in my hangar someday.

Edited June 13, 2019 by J5_Hellbender

[Sgt_Joch]

You are correct HB. I went back and read your post in the other thread and see where are looking at this the same way. 

 

The other issue is that flight tests were amateurish at the beginning of the war, so hard to know how reliable the data we have even is.

 

There is a NACA report from 1919-20 which is an english translation of a german test from nov.-dec. 1918 of a D.VII with a D.IIIau engine. I have read it in the past, but have not been able to locate it. It might be useful for comparaison purposes.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Sgt_Joch

[Cynic_Al]

8 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

And they are. My point was regarding an entire series (multiple volumes) from 1916-18, Western and Eastern fronts.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[US103_Baer]

Yes. My understanding is that Published airspeeds are usually TAS unless otherwise stated. 

 

The FC and RoF descriptions are IAS though which helps us compare directly to what we see in-game.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I flew the Alby for a couple of hours in multiplayer tonight, and while she feels slow and flimsy (because she is), she's nevertheless not to be underestimated. She makes very short work of SPADs, SEs and especially Dolphins that attempt to add any kind of turn to their maneuvers. I think this has more to do with the lack of bullet spread in FC compared to RoF, because I was often causing more damage from far away than from up close. Maybe this has more to do with the angle at which bullets hit the fuselage, or maybe I'm just a bad shot from up close.

 

In any case, I have to agree with what @Darkowl said in chat: she's worse than the Pfalz. Even the revised Pfalz (who's now 2km/h slower than the Alby) is a far smoother ride, better diver, more stable gun platform, and built like a brick sh*thouse. However, the Alby has slightly better maneuverability and can throw off a Camel with judicious use of flat scissors, which comes down to a battle of attrition with the Camel pilot, hoping he will eventually make a mistake. The whole trick for the Camel is not to get involved, climb above, let the spastic chicken do its thing and then come in with energy. It's what worked pre-1.034 and it will continue to work now.

 

Overall she's not that great, but she looks pretty and she's a lot of fun to fly. This will be and has always been a team plane, even more so than the D.VII

 

I need a bit more time with the SE, because other than faster and slightly more maneuverable, I didn't find her much different from the SPAD. She doesn't shed wings quite so easily as in RoF (neither does the Alby), which I think is one of the great improvements of FC over RoF. My main concern is how well she does at altitude against the Fokker D.VIIF.

[J5_Gamecock]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I flew the Alby for a couple of hours in multiplayer tonight, and while she feels slow and flimsy (because she is), she's nevertheless not to be underestimated. She makes very short work of SPADs, SEs and especially Dolphins that attempt to add any kind of turn to their maneuvers. I think this has more to do with the lack of bullet spread in FC compared to RoF, because I was often causing more damage from far away than from up close. Maybe this has more to do with the angle at which bullets hit the fuselage, or maybe I'm just a bad shot from up close.

 

In any case, I have to agree with what @Darkowl said in chat: she's worse than the Pfalz. Even the revised Pfalz (who's now 2km/h slower than the Alby) is a far smoother ride, better diver, more stable gun platform, and built like a brick sh*thouse. However, the Alby has slightly better maneuverability and can throw off a Camel with judicious use of flat scissors, which comes down to a battle of attrition with the Camel pilot, hoping he will eventually make a mistake. The whole trick for the Camel is not to get involved, climb above, let the spastic chicken do its thing and then come in with energy. It's what worked pre-1.034 and it will continue to work now.

 

Overall she's not that great, but she looks pretty and she's a lot of fun to fly. This will be and has always been a team plane, even more so than the D.VII

 

I need a bit more time with the SE, because other than faster and slightly more maneuverable, I didn't find her much different from the SPAD. She doesn't shed wings quite so easily as in RoF (neither does the Alby), which I think is one of the great improvements of FC over RoF. My main concern is how well she does at altitude against the Fokker D.VIIF.

What he said.