Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SP1969

SE5a

Recommended Posts

Does anyone else find the windscreen a little heavily tinted?

 

I sometimes find myself losing target when I stick my head back inside the cockpit.

 

I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is just me - but it doesn't seem to have quite the same effect on the other aeroplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SP1969 said:

Does anyone else find the windscreen a little heavily tinted?

Its quite a bit less tinted than it was in RoF 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 2:30 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

Might I suggest you go and have a word with a Mr Dehaviland, he might be able to put you to good use during the next innings, although don't blame me if everyone laughs at you or doesn't take you seriously, you'll have to show your metal (or not) first, maybe pay them a very quick flying visit.

 

Oh OH ! I get you now. Sorry was brain lagging.  You mean the MOSQUITO ! Wow cryptic.  Good!  S! P.  PS. They certainly took the plane seriously in the end!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of flying hands off, I came across this talk from Shuttleworth. They have the last surviving real airworthy SE5a in the world. The pilot confirms it can be flown hands off and level. The FC model cannot even with full negative stabiliser. Without response curves this can’t be fixed manually https://youtu.be/fGNSQrMYRKM

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Waggaz said:

On the subject of flying hands off, I came across this talk from Shuttleworth. They have the last surviving real airworthy SE5a in the world. The pilot confirms it can be flown hands off and level. The FC model cannot even with full negative stabiliser. Without response curves this can’t be fixed manually https://youtu.be/fGNSQrMYRKM

 

A similar comment is made by the guys over at The Vintage Aviator.

 

The constant having to force the nose down makes aiming a real PITA.

 

Also - if one is wounded, the pitch up means one cannot, absolutely cannot, keep the nose down. A forced landing always becomes a crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SP1969 said:

 

Also - if one is wounded, the pitch up means one cannot, absolutely cannot, keep the nose down. A forced landing always becomes a crash.

 

Use the trim wheel. It gives the Se5 an advantage over other scouts in this regard.

Share this post


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

 

Use the trim wheel. It gives the Se5 an advantage over other scouts in this regard.

 

I am, Klugermann, it does have an effect, thank you for mentioning it, but not nearly enough.

 

The trim wheel had 15 detents.

 

According to documental evidence, a pilot would use  a setting of 7 'clicks' negative from a start of full positive ( 'up' ) for take off.

 

Everything I have ever read about the SE5a suggests that it could be very easily flown 'hands off'. 

 

Even with full negative trim, regardless of fuel and weapon load, the Se5a will assume a climbing attitude and eventually stall, if one tries to fly 'hands off'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SP1969 said:

 

I am, Klugermann, it does have an effect, thank you for mentioning it, but not nearly enough.

 

The trim wheel had 15 detents.

 

According to documental evidence, a pilot would use  a setting of 7 'clicks' negative from a start of full positive ( 'up' ) for take off.

 

Everything I have ever read about the SE5a suggests that it could be very easily flown 'hands off'. 

 

Even with full negative trim, regardless of fuel and weapon load, the Se5a will assume a climbing attitude and eventually stall, if one tries to fly 'hands off'. 

 

It might, or might not, be something to do with the attitude at which the SE5a flys.  Should it fly nose down, does it fly nose down, if so does that have a bearing on the adjustable stabiliser angle effect ?

 

2 hours ago, Klugermann said:

Probably won't matter too much since everyone will be flying Camels anyway. 😨

 

 

Given that the Camel is a dogfighting aircraft, pure and simple, and that multiplayer tends to be dogfights then why would you take anything else ?  Taking something other than the Camel is akin to taking an F1 car to a motor rally, or the other way round, they both do what they do very well, just in the arena for which they are designed.  The incredible thing, to my mind, is how well the German players do in aircraft that aren't particularly designed for that type of furball.  The SE5a is built for a different type of job that isn't really found in FC very often, flying around, fast, out of harms way and pouncing unobserved on an unwary victim, the type of gameplay, mission length, better observation and lack of realistic cloudscape all disadvantage aircraft like the SE5a.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

...  The incredible thing, to my mind, is how well the German players do in aircraft that aren't particularly designed for that type of furball ...

 

I guess the more accomplished pilots looking for an real challenge )))
 
Takes a while before fuel locks come evening the MP field some.
Chalk that off on the kind of missions for now.
Only imagine those taking less than 15% gas now in a Camel having to deal with 30 to 60% (100%???) next )))
Edited by West

Share this post


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

 

I guess the more accomplished pilots looking for an real challenge )))
 
Takes a while before fuel locks come evening the MP field some.
Chalk that off on the kind of missions for now.
Only imagine those taking less than 15% gas now in a Camel having to deal with 30 to 60% (100%???) next )))

 

Presumably, if it is perfectly legitimate to artificially stymie the best Allied aircraft, because it is too good at doing the job for which it was designed, then it would be perfectly permissible to do the same to the best Central aircraft ?

 

it's a little ironic that the style of gameplay that makes life tough for the SE5a is adopted by Central aircraft who then potentially complian when they deliberately put themselves in the same position and then expect to be able to take on the Camel on the Camels terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Hagard be assured if push comes to shove everyone will get its dose.

We have been there already.

While there is no such thing as "If" it only depends on the host.

Like taking of with 10-15% gas is even less artificial this after already going for the superior machine.

Being "liberal" about it leaving it up to the player to do the balancing simply does not work.

Going 30-40% / 50-70 litres makes the Camel still more than effective while hardly artificial.

 

Sorry for the getting OT.

Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 12:06 AM, DD_Arthur said:

 

Agree very much.  I've recently been flying a lot more DCS as well as plenty of BoS but the stars of the VR show are undoubtedly the WW1 birds of Flying Circus

Thanks a lot, I was just deciding I was not to buy VR and I was not to be tempted. I returned my borrowed OR and would not buy this devious mechanism making me want to spend more time flying.

I really loved flying FC planes with OR, in fact the only thing I really miss not having OR anymore. I manage perfectly without in DCS and the little flying in WW2 planes I do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, West said:

Only imagine those taking less than 15% gas now in a Camel having to deal with 30 to 60% (100%???) next )))

 

I think you are mistaken. In these current maps 30% is not unusual at all. Plus, the Camel has a huge tank. 30% is enough for about 75 minutes of flying time, or even more if you play with mixture. You could load twice the ammo [if that was possible] and still run out of it in 75 minutes of furballs ans chases. But it is good to carry more fuel because if you get hit in the tank, depending on the size of the hole, you still have enough flying time to kill a guy or two. More fuel also seems to give it a bit more momentum in bounces and pendulums, something I felt on the Dolphin.

 

Regarding fuel locks, of course we are going to see fuel load manipulation in the future. On this regard, I did a study with some FC planes, and they seem to retain the same performance from ROF, so we can make a comparison.

 

Fuel load study for Flying Circus.

 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SP1969 said:

Even with full negative trim, regardless of fuel and weapon load, the Se5a will assume a climbing attitude and eventually stall, if one tries to fly 'hands off'. 

 

For what it's worth;  with full negative trim SE5a flys hands off at @65mph with half a tankful at around five hundred feet.

 

  Goes into a gentle, continuous left hand turn too:)

 

 

Edited by DD_Arthur

Share this post


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

  with full negative trim SE5a flys hands off at @65mph with half a tankful at around five hundred feet. 

  

  Goes into a gentle, continuous left hand turn too

 Related to your these frustrations around nose up flying...I wonder how many pilots IRL actually flew around full throttle full time,  for how long they were able to do that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 Related to your these frustrations around nose up flying...I wonder how many pilots IRL actually flew around full throttle full time,  for how long they were able to do that.

Cruise speed was like 100-200 RPMs less ? SE5a should be able to trim hands off at max speed level flight . I think now this is possible only with force feedback joystick.

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

For what it's worth;  with full negative trim SE5a flys hands off at @65mph with half a tankful at around five hundred feet.

 

  Goes into a gentle, continuous left hand turn too:)

 

 

 

I had made it to 71 mph. I was probably lower.

3 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Cruise speed was like 100-200 RPMs less ? SE5a should be able to trim hands off at max speed level flight . I think now this is possible only with force feedback joystick.

 

That the joystick you use influences the limits this way is rather bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

That the joystick you use influences the limits this way is rather bad.

 

Who said that ? All spring based joysticks are different that in FF one you can have center position shifted by FM code and do not need same amount of stabilizator to fly straight hands off at same power setting. Why shifted you my ask - because no simetric lenght of control collumn movement from center  on some aeroplanes. This can't be simulated properly on spring based joystick. IMHO if that is the case plane should be trimmed for hands off for spring based no for FF joysticks. 

Edited by 307_Tomcat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

 

Who said that ? All spring based joysticks are different that in FF one you can have center position shifted by FM code and do not need same amount of stabilizator to fly straight hands off at same power setting. Why shifted you my ask - because no simetric lenght of control collumn movement from center  on some aeroplanes. This can't be simulated properly on spring based joystick. IMHO if that is the case plane should be trimmed for hands off for spring based no for FF joysticks. 

 

Ah I think I understand your point. My gut feeling is that the extreme and neutral elevator positions should ideally match those on any joystick. And no essential move should be impossible on any joystick. But that might require linearising the responses between each pair of those 3 points, which could get rather awkward in planes whose "flat" position is way off-center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd concur with Bidu on this.

 

I think the issue is largely that the BoX engine is essentially tailored to all metal Second war aeroplanes, which could not, of course, be 'rigged' in the way a Great War aeroplane could be.

 

We know, as a matter of fact, that pilots could ask their riggers to alter may aspects of the way the aeroplane flew - changing dihedral, shortening or lengthening  travel in control wires as easy examples.

 

This isn't possible in BoX, which was the point of curve adjustment in RoF.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2019 at 3:28 PM, J2_Bidu said:

 

Ah I think I understand your point. My gut feeling is that the extreme and neutral elevator positions should ideally match those on any joystick. And no essential move should be impossible on any joystick. But that might require linearising the responses between each pair of those 3 points, which could get rather awkward in planes whose "flat" position is way off-center.

You are probably right. The Se5a had an asymetrical elevator with more positive than negative travel (more 'up' elevator). This was because the airframe was built to withstand more positive 'g' than negative 'g' as is the case in most aircraft. This means that a joystick with a fixed central position does not match the true asymetrical elevator travel of the Se5a. It is a joystick/elevator problem that requires curves to correct. It has nothing to do with the stabilizer trim which seems to work as it should, as in ROF.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rail
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am reading Gunning for the Red Baron; Bennett concludes that the agility of the S.E. largely matched that of the Dv, and references the effect of wing loading (lower in the S.E.). The sustained turn of the SE in game is easily beaten by the Dva - despite the less powerful engine and higher wing loading, why does our Dva sustain a turn and hold energy better? Am interested in the science (I don’t fully understand it!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

At co-alt try a 40 degree angle-of-bank at full throttle and stay anywhere outside of the Albs best turn radius (don't get too close). Keep him on your wingtip and observe... BTW: there is a handy bracing wire angled at exactly 40 degrees outside of the cockpit on either side as a guide. Try it also against the DR-1, especially in a L/H turn. Your speed advantage should cancel the larger turn radius involved. I'm speaking from tests carried out in ROF so perhaps you can let me know.

Cheers.

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Am reading Gunning for the Red Baron; Bennett concludes that the agility of the S.E. largely matched that of the Dv, and references the effect of wing loading (lower in the S.E.). The sustained turn of the SE in game is easily beaten by the Dva - despite the less powerful engine and higher wing loading, why does our Dva sustain a turn and hold energy better? Am interested in the science (I don’t fully understand it!)

 

Edited by Rail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rail said:

 

 

 

At co-alt try a 40 degree angle-of-bank at full throttle and stay anywhere outside of the Albs best turn radius (don't get too close). Keep him on your wingtip and observe... BTW: there is a handy bracing wire angled at exactly 40 degrees outside of the cockpit on either side as a guide. Try it also against the DR-1, especially in a L/H turn. Your speed advantage should cancel the larger turn radius involved. I'm speaking from tests carried out in ROF so perhaps you can let me know.

Cheers.

 

I don't know for sure about an alb, but a dr1? No matter what speed or angle you have they'll 360 onto your tail in a few seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

I don't know for sure about an alb, but a dr1? No matter what speed or angle you have they'll 360 onto your tail in a few seconds.

 

Well, we are just about to test it. Being outside of his best turn radius and inside of your own at full-speed makes all the difference, especially in a shallow, climbing L/H turn. The Dr-1 is a flat-earth specialist. It is not so good at climbing turns at high-speed because of its very high lift ratio. It can turn and it can climb but it has a problem doing both at the same time at high speed. So, we will see. BTW: the Se5a can roll faster than the Dr1 can turn and can always roll inside a DR1 turn from directly above.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

None of this matters, the better turning plane can always trade in altitude for speed and score a prop hanging snapshot.

 

Back in pre-1.034 RoF the Camel could outturn the Dr.I in a left-hand climbing turn (chandelle), unless of course the Dr.I pilot could predict when and where the Camel would be about 180 degrees later. He would nose down, pick up speed to temporarily increase his rate of turn and then nose up intersecting with the flight path of the Camel. Boom. The hard counter to that maneuver was for the Camel to roll into the chandelle and hope that he could dive on the Dr.I past the apex of his prophang.

 

Those were fun times. It got a lot easier when we figured out that you can’t outturn a twin Lewis turret.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep wondering what FC would be like if the S.E. could take on an Alb in a turn-fight. I actually think it might not be the worst thing in the world...certainly it would give the Entente noobies something a little more reasonable than their current options - all of which are great planes, but all require experience to use properly. If the S.E. could be flown in a more 'Albatros-esque' way then it might have more appeal for rookies starting out. 

I can see why the Centrals might not be thrilled by that idea, though...a plane that can turn with and outrun Albs...but, honestly, I think a lot of pilots would be more likely to fight to the end. It's usually the V-Lifers that will cut and run from a fight, and I think there are less v-lifers than other pilots...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I keep wondering what FC would be like if the S.E. could take on an Alb in a turn-fight. I actually think it might not be the worst thing in the world...certainly it would give the Entente noobies something a little more reasonable than their current options - all of which are great planes, but all require experience to use properly. If the S.E. could be flown in a more 'Albatros-esque' way then it might have more appeal for rookies starting out. 

I can see why the Centrals might not be thrilled by that idea, though...a plane that can turn with and outrun Albs...but, honestly, I think a lot of pilots would be more likely to fight to the end. It's usually the V-Lifers that will cut and run from a fight, and I think there are less v-lifers than other pilots...

 

I would love to see a historically accurate Albatros D.Va, one which according to German pilot reports "stalled sharply and spun vigorously", which according to S.E.5a pilots test flying a captured Albatros "was sluggish to maneuver compared to the S.E.5a", and finally, was equipped with a 200hp (by British measurements) Mercedes D.IIIaü engine, which differentiates it from the Albatros D.V (along with a number of control wire changes and other minor adjustments), and which had a top speed at the January 1918 Adlershof competition of 185km/h.

 

Hey, but that's just me, you know.

 

 

P.S. But Bender, what are you going to do with an Albatros that turns worse than an S.E.5a and still flies slower than it? Well, simple, fly it in an historically accurate fashion: climb above 15,000ft, which is the practical service ceiling of the S.E. The Albatros was able to go up to at least 17-18,000ft, where its only true rival would have been the SPAD XIII, which the Albatros could outturn.

 

But you know, let's keep playing Fantasy Fokker Flights.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've attached the table from Bennett's Gunning for the Red Baron where he assesses turn radii based upon wing loading. Bennett is a scientist and aeronautical engineer, in addition to his side-gig as a historical author. His assessment was that the SE5a (also using anecdotal evidence from McCudden and others) had a sustained turn that would have been similar to the Dva, not the brick we have here which falls like a stone after a few seconds of energy bleed. His technical assessment of the MvR vs Hawker fight is also interesting, showing that Dii could easily outclimb the DH2 apart from down at lower alts, which was why Hawker likely dragged the fight to the deck; sadly his engine had problems (which he apparently knew about!) with carbonised castor oil droplets coating valve seats preventing valve closure or piston rings from sealing, causing a drop in compression and power as the fight dragged on.

 

@J5_Hellbender love the tactical analysis for the service ceiling. Cecil Lewis in his live TV interview talked about the Central planes always being above them in their SE5s no matter how high they climbed. Good point!

Turns.jpg

Edited by US93_Rummell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This analysis is just someone else's FM, is it not? I mean it may be "correct" or it may not,  but they're still plugging numbers into a (seemingly quite crude) mathematical model, so who's to say this is better than FC?  What we need (and what we can never get) is concrete data recorded at the time.  Sorry to be all BSR about this, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

This analysis is just someone else's FM, is it not? I mean it may be "correct" or it may not,  but they're still plugging numbers into a (seemingly quite crude) mathematical model, so who's to say this is better than FC?  What we need (and what we can never get) is concrete data recorded at the time.  Sorry to be all BSR about this, btw.

Sure it’s one scientist’s analysis mixed with anecdotal evidence. I’d happily welcome more studies like this in the mix combining data and anecdotal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I keep wondering what FC would be like if the S.E. could take on an Alb in a turn-fight.

 

Keep wondering Larner. :biggrin:

 

On second thoughts, I'm sure AnP is right onto it. :coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I keep wondering what FC would be like if the S.E. could take on an Alb in a turn-fight. 

 

It would be 50 dumbass's flying around in S.E.'s wondering why they're not finding anyone flying Albs.

Share this post


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

 

It would be 50 dumbass's flying around in S.E.'s wondering why they're not finding anyone flying Albs.

 

What utter ballcocks.  You’d struggle to find 50 anybody’s flying around in a server these days, let alone 50 SE pilots.  At least we now know who’s been advising the Developers on flight modelling, game play and balance issues 🙃.

Share this post


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

 

What utter ballcocks.  You’d struggle to find 50 anybody’s flying around in a server these days, let alone 50 SE pilots.  At least we now know who’s been advising the Developers on flight modelling, game play and balance issues 🙃.

 

I counted 65 yesterday on Flugpark.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I counted 65 yesterday on Flugpark.


😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...