Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Recently I've been wondering just what happened to the S.E.5a in Flying Circus. Historically the S.E.5a was very well-liked by those who flew it, being well-matched with its allied and enemy contemporaries. It had good manoeuvrability, tame handling characteristics, and was a fantastic Boom n Zoom aircraft. 

However, in Flying Circus the thing feels like a pig. It performs decently as a Boom n Zoomer but feels like it bleeds energy at a much higher rate than what you'd expect. Furthermore, its rudder deflection is absolutely woeful, making actually hitting anything in a BnZ attack a serious chore. 

In a turning fight, the S.E. almost instantly loses all its energy, shaking violently and straining to make even a flat half-turn. I know the M/O of this plane isn't turn fighting, but within one or two flat turns the plane is a complete sitting duck. Strange, seeing as historical pilot accounts seem to reveal that S.E pilots would turn with Albatros pilots. Not necessarily saying that the IL2 S.E.5a should match an Albatros in the turn, but it definitely should have a little more manoeuvrability. 

Strangely, when I first flew the SPAD XIII in FC I was immediately really excited for the S.E...apart from feeling like it wasn't quite as good at diving, the SPAD felt a lot closer to what I had imagined when I read pilot accounts - although it wouldn't out-turn its German contemporaries, it was manoeuvrable and stable enough to hold its own in a dogfight. I expected that the S.E would be an absolute powerhouse when it came along! However, when the S.E. arrived I was totally underwhelmed with its performance. It felt sluggish (or, at least as sluggish as an S.E.5a can feel). 

It also feels like it sheds its wings far too easily, for a plane that was described by Cecil Lewis to be "Impossible to break up through rough handling" (slight paraphrasing there). 

 

In my opinion, the S.E. feels especially poor when compared to its RoF predecessor, which could dive, turn, and shoot infinitely better than the FC version. The FC SPAD feels far, far superior to me, when I think they should be a lot more closely matched. 

 

I've yet to really 'dive deep' into piloting the SE5a as a 'main ride', but at the moment I can't help but feel like we've ended up with a totally pitiful imitation of the real thing. At the moment its big saving grace (apart from speed) is numbers. Despite being neutered, it can still do well if you have a couple wingmen. 

 

EDIT: Another thing I've noticed, although it might be my imagination, is that the S.E. suffers from a disproportionate amount of insta-kills. That is to say, one bullet that outright kills the pilot. I've experienced this in the S.E far more than any other plane. 

EDIT 2: I think I'll make my next V-life(s) S.E.5a-centric, to get a better feel for the plane in general. It could be the case that I'm simply not used to it - although I flew it a lot in RoF. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's FM was rebuild by AnPetrovich in ROF and it's one  plane for which they have  good data measurements as you can read in ROF forum. Personally,  it feels to me like car stuck on 6 gear  ...

 

I would like to compare in game Se5a to this doc.

Comparative performance of various airscrews for SE5A aeroplane with Wolseley Viper engine.

 

Available from https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

Btw

Nothing to say about it adversary Albatross which FM was made very long ago and imo and should be rebuild to today's standards. 

 

 

 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@1PL-Husar-1Esk My biggest curiosity lies in the rapid energy loss and the terrible rudder deflection. SURELY they can't be right??? The RoF FM felt much better than FC in both regards! 

Edit: If the UK wasn't on lockdown at the moment I'd be able to head into my old workplace and check a real 1918 S.E.5a's rudder deflection. Pity! 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going below 100 mph and flying at higher  AA than best rate of climb makes Se5a target practice for sure. 

What our champ @No56_Waggaz can say how it compares to ROF ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say that the FM is the same when compared RoF (after the SE5a prop modification) and FC.

Generally, it is a nice plane to fly for me. I like the adjustable H-stab and the ability to strike the targets from below using Lewis. The critical thing is to keep the speed at around 90-100mph, with the revs around 1800. Yes, she climbs better at 75mph, but the acceleration to higher speed is very poor. Flying and dogfighting in the SE5a requires more planning and care. And a teammate (or more!) :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that it is Viper S.E.5.a (2 blade prop one) which was high altitude interceptor, not Hispano-Suiza one (4 blade prop one) that was turning with Albatrosen.. This does not address all the problems you raise ( it shouldn't differ  from RoF performance), but is reason for the "car stuck in 6th gear" behaviour.

I've had very little success with this plane, thought I was just rusty in it. It still rolls like crazy, and seems to be excellent gun platform, but other than that I can't make it work. 

The S.E.5 drivers I see are either very cautious, opportunistic, avoiding D.VIIs, attacking lesser planes from advantage, diving away very fast if they cannot cripple me, or kaltes Fleisch

From what you say, S.E.5 may be a good match for Mercedes D.VII right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I echo the same thoughts as Larn-dog. 

 

The second I try to do anything its shaking and wallowing. My immediate thought was why weren't more folks flying the SPAD over the SE? 

 

But I am in no way an expert here. 

Share this post


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

 Furthermore, its rudder deflection is absolutely woeful, making actually hitting anything in a BnZ attack a serious chore. 

Sir, I also thought so, but maybe it's the power of habit, after flying on a more stable Spad platform, or even Dolphin.  I hope this problem can be specifically solved by training.

I do not believe that the SeVa model will be changed in the near future.  Therefore, you need to fight with the weapons that are.  Ineffective machine gun work, the difficulty of aiming at the target, and even the increased vulnerability of the pilot, are problems of the second stage.  The main nuisance is a long acceleration and weak climb at low flight speeds.

I'm not an expert, but this P3 grabbed my ass like D7F did in RoF.  An attempt to get to the top (0:57 _ 1:07) failed.  My buddy, on the second SE, couldn’t get my six in sight.  This guy got us angry so much that we shot him a bit on the landing, for which he called us bastards in the chat 🙂

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a little better than the ROF version but as the others have said speed needs to be maintained. Wings are certainly more durable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will also echo the general sentiment that the Se5a in both FC and RoF is a pretty hopeless plane compared to its direct rivals. Thats not to say an expert pilot couldnt do very well in it, but for less skilled pilots such as myself its basically suicidal, even when I try use the correct tactics. The historical accounts of pilots who flew them, and even what the vintage aviator pilots said when they flew their reproductions (which are so accurate that they can definitely be considered the "real thing") in a mock dog fight was that the albatross dva was hopelessly outclassed by the Se5a in virtually all aspects (including turn fighting it seems), so I think there definitely is a problem somewhere.. But it might not be the se5a thats at fault, but rather the albatrosses and pfalz FM's that could be the issue here. Whenever I fly the dva especially I am amazed that it just seem to be a plane with no flaws: its stable, easy to fly and almost impossible to stall unless you actively try. So maybe these early FM's from around 2008-2009 (dva especially) have some error or didnt take something into account properly that results in planes that fly way better in game than they should? Unfortunately we will never know until we have access to someone who has actually flown these aircraft in RL..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are positives about the FC SE5a which are definite improvements from RoF:

- The wings dont shed as easily in a dive than in RoF, or when shot up a bit. In RoF, wing damage was a good as a fuel tank hit and usually meant a RTB.

- The stabilizer and elevator trim is now more balanced by default rather than having her nosing up like mad. The RoF SE5 was a nightmare without response curves, which is poor for the beginner pilot who hasnt messed with curves.

 

The biggest issues for me right now are:

- Energy retention after the first dive, acceleration, and climb at low speeds. Boom and zoom needs the zoom bit, and with the offset guns it isn't easy to kill in the first pass unless it's a perfect bounce. Plus, the DviiF engine is also tougher now so such much harder to knock out (the same is true of wing damage for albis etc). I'm regularly getting pilot sniped/critically hit after my first pass in a zoom by all opponents, even when my dive is 200mph+ at max 2300rpm. It happened twice last night, with my buddy Jacob putting me out of my misery as I attempted to accelerate away in a dive.

- Even when I do get a good bounce, once the fight has moved lower - which is usually does as a first pass kill isn't that easy - the Camels pounce and attack like loons, sometimes hitting me in the process. Of course this is always going to happen in any MP game.

 

I accepted long ago in RoF that the SE5 would never turn with the Albis and that I'd probably never get to fly one in a sim, despite the numerous eye-witness and contemporary accounts of it regularly being able to do just that (prop type aside), but now I cant fight BnZ in it effectively either. The only viably safe tactic is high-speed passes with wingmen, keeping speed up and retaining as much height as possible in the process. In the meantime I'm going to go back to my Spad and might suggest my wingmen do the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not sure I understand the complaints of the RoF SE5a, unless people want to fight in circles with it.  The SE5a in RoF flies just fine if you stick to BnZ.  If you aren't absolutely dominating albatrossen with it in RoF, that is 100% a pilot problem.

 

Here in FC it is a bit different though.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm not sure I understand the complaints of the RoF SE5a, unless people want to fight in circles with it.  The SE5a in RoF flies just fine if you stick to BnZ.  If you aren't absolutely dominating albatrossen with it in RoF, that is 100% a pilot problem.

 

Here in FC it is a bit different though.

Spot on. That's why I'd like to see what Winged Warrior and the SE5a aces make of it now. I'm also not going to write it off if someone has developed effective tactics using it in FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we need engine and prop variants for the SE5as and Spads, for the D.VII vanilla and Albatroses / Pfalzes as well, perhaps even 110hp Camels. From my recollection, the D.VII vs SE5a was always a blast, and aces were very effective with SE5as, especially working in pairs or squadrons. The D7F can't be used as a comparison for anything, since it has a very strong engine at altitude and great maneuverability. Whenever people unlocked the D7Fs on those vanilla vs SE5a / Spad missions, the scale tipped heavily towards the German side.

 

Is there a way to test energy retention here? Are all planes affected by it and just some planes suffer from it? (Stiles make fights). Regarding ROF, the DV.a and D3 got a good boost in speed, and the DV.a have an excellent energy retention there, so I tend to think that you would fare better against it here than in ROF. There are lots of novices and inexperienced pilots flying there.

Share this post


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

I will also echo the general sentiment that the Se5a in both FC and RoF is a pretty hopeless plane compared to its direct rivals. 

Just not in RoF.  SeVa in Rof, this is one of the best aircraft.  Yes, he was noticeably inferior to D7f there too, but the initiative to join the battle, or to leave the battlefield, remained with him.  This is if he followed a few simple rules.

Gentlemen, I know that some of you do not treat me very well.  This is normal .  But I ask for an exception for this topic, SeVa is worth it.  In the end, you can temporarily, if you do not forgive sins to someone, then at least close your eyes for a while ;-)) I will be happy to share with any information about the FM of this aircraft that I consider useful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I guess we need engine and prop variants for the SE5as and Spads, for the D.VII vanilla and Albatroses / Pfalzes as well, perhaps even 110hp Camels.

Yes. Yess. YESSS!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, emely said:

Just not in RoF.  SeVa in Rof, this is one of the best aircraft.  Yes, he was noticeably inferior to D7f there too, but the initiative to join the battle, or to leave the battlefield, remained with him.  This is if he followed a few simple rules.

Gentlemen, I know that some of you do not treat me very well.  This is normal .  But I ask for an exception for this topic, SeVa is worth it.  In the end, you can temporarily, if you do not forgive sins to someone, then at least close your eyes for a while ;-)) I will be happy to share with any information about the FM of this aircraft that I consider useful

 

Emely is a very capable Se5 jockey so perhaps we should ask " How does Emely do it?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Bear in mind that it is Viper S.E.5.a (2 blade prop one) which was high altitude interceptor, not Hispano-Suiza one (4 blade prop one) that was turning with Albatrosen.


I've seen you mention this before - I can't see any way that a prop-swap and an improved version of the older engine could possibly affect anything about the aerodynamic abilities of the S.E's airframe...much less in a negative way...

 

1 hour ago, No56_Waggaz said:

The biggest issues for me right now are:

- Energy retention after the first dive, acceleration, and climb at low speeds. Boom and zoom needs the zoom bit, and with the offset guns it isn't easy to kill in the first pass unless it's a perfect bounce. Plus, the DviiF engine is also tougher now so such much harder to knock out (the same is true of wing damage for albis etc). I'm regularly getting pilot sniped/critically hit after my first pass in a zoom by all opponents, even when my dive is 200mph+ at max 2300rpm. It happened twice last night, with my buddy Jacob putting me out of my misery as I attempted to accelerate away in a dive.

 

 

I accepted long ago in RoF that the SE5 would never turn with the Albis and that I'd probably never get to fly one in a sim, despite the numerous eye-witness and contemporary accounts of it regularly being able to do just that (prop type aside), but now I cant fight BnZ in it effectively either. 

 


I'm glad that a seasoned S.E. pilot is noticing some of the same things as me, and I'm not just being dramatic! THIS is my absolute biggest issue at the moment - I can live with the lower turn rate, but if the S.E. can't BnZ either then it's just a free meal for the Hun! As it currently stands, the S.E. is nothing more than a Squadron aircraft - alone, it's a sitting duck. Just, one that can fly off rather quickly if you see the attack coming. 

I've also noticed that it seems incredibly easy to wound / kill the pilot. I don't know if it's the shape of the airframe / pilot position or what, but like I mention I've been instantly killed many times in the aircraft, often by Huns that I didn't think even had a convincing shot...
 

 

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm not sure I understand the complaints of the RoF SE5a, unless people want to fight in circles with it.  The SE5a in RoF flies just fine if you stick to BnZ.  If you aren't absolutely dominating albatrossen with it in RoF, that is 100% a pilot problem.


Totally agreed. Back in RoF I was, before signing up with J2 and then later US103, almost exclusively an S.E. driver. After getting a bit more experienced in flying her, I would happily attack formations of D.VII Fs if I had the height and not be too worried. In FC, I wouldn't fancy my chances against an aware Albatros if I was alone...

I really, really want to like the S.E.5a, but as it stands it feels like all it can effectively do is run away from a scrap! And god forbid you should get a D.VII F close on your tail....


 

 

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

I guess we need engine and prop variants for the SE5as and Spads, for the D.VII vanilla and Albatroses / Pfalzes as well, perhaps even 110hp Camels. From my recollection, the D.VII vs SE5a was always a blast, and aces were very effective with SE5as, especially working in pairs or squadrons. The D7F can't be used as a comparison for anything, since it has a very strong engine at altitude and great maneuverability. Whenever people unlocked the D7Fs on those vanilla vs SE5a / Spad missions, the scale tipped heavily towards the German side.


I've been of the opinion for a while now that engine mods for ALL planes are absolutely essential to achieving more balance and variety within Flying Circus. Unfortunately - there just doesn't seem to be any real avenue to bring these ideas to the devs in a capacity where we could enter a dialogue with them! We'll just have to add a combat-capable S.E to the growing list of things we want but will likely never get ;) (Not to be misunderstood - FC is fantastic as is, but there is definitely lots and lots of room for improvement!) 



I definitely want to experiment with flying the S.E. more in FC. I've always been of the opinion that any plane can exceed if the pilot knows it well enough - which is evidenced often enough when checking up on the Aces for the Aviator's Chronicle! I've seen pilots reaching triple-ace status in ALL the 'lame ducks' (Pfalz, Dolphin, Bristol, etc) 

That being said, the TERRIBLE energy retention absolutely cripples the S.E. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


I've seen you mention this before - I can't see any way that a prop-swap and an improved version of the older engine could possibly affect anything about the aerodynamic abilities of the S.E's airframe...much less in a negative way...

 



It's not as much "improved" as "specialised". It loses horspower differently with altitude,  it has higher service ceiling, it is able to archieve higher top speed at altitude - which means sustaining the speed well and still accelerating a bit more, not accelerating fast. It may have a cruising propeller pitched exactly for that - steady buildup of speed. That may be what 1PL describe as "car stuck on 6th gear". Not ideal setup when you get slow, low on energy at 9000 feet and need to "retain" it via quick application of brute force engine output. Meanwhile, an engine optimalised for lower altitude, with climbing 4-blade prop will be better when going at low speed, possibly turning with Albatros, and keep accelerating the plane enough to sustain the flight. In a race, Viper will outrun H-S... eventually. In a turn, H-S will keep dragging the frame much longer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much only fly the SE when on the Entente side, and reading this thread has made me feel much happier about myself as a virtual pilot.  Because, yes, I find the only way to engage and survive is to bounce very accurately on unsuspecting prey.  If you do not cripple in the first pass, then you just have to keep trucking on down.  Any sort of a dogfight almost invariably ends in your demise.  So you keep diving  down, and down.  Assuming  you don't get followed, you may then begin to climb back to repeat the process.

 

Whether this represents the RL experience of SE pilots v  DVa,  DVII or Dr1, I don't know.  I suppose the caveat is that IRL these machines were flown in formations, and we're not doing that in FC (as other threads have pointed out).

Share this post


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

 Unfortunately we will never know until we have access to someone who has actually flown these aircraft in RL..

Even if someone like that comes along we won't believe him we'll just tell him if his airplane doesn't have the exact right prop or engine that he's an idiot who doesn't know any better than us like we did to chilli31.

Edited by Tycoon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:



It's not as much "improved" as "specialised". It loses horspower differently with altitude,  it has higher service ceiling, it is able to archieve higher top speed at altitude - which means sustaining the speed well and still accelerating a bit more, not accelerating fast. It may have a cruising propeller pitched exactly for that - steady buildup of speed. That may be what 1PL describe as "car stuck on 6th gear". Not ideal setup when you get slow, low on energy at 9000 feet and need to "retain" it via quick application of brute force engine output. Meanwhile, an engine optimalised for lower altitude, with climbing 4-blade prop will be better when going at low speed, possibly turning with Albatros, and keep accelerating the plane enough to sustain the flight. In a race, Viper will outrun H-S... eventually. In a turn, H-S will keep dragging the frame much longer.

 

That makes a lot of sense. In which case I shouldn't fly the current model as a BnZer, as I would a Spad. I'd be interested to hear ideas on how to adjust tactics accordingly, particularly if anyone is having a lot of success. I've been spending 30-45m a day recently just BnZing at 2km vs AI on quick mission switching between the SE and Spad and the energy regain is noticeably different.

 

To be clear, I'm still having some success with her (at least 1:1 K/D vs human pilots; 2:1 including AI), but nowhere near as much as with the Spad. Both Emely and I have similar SE5 victory totals this month in Flugpark (it looks like he flies the Dolphin a fair bit too and others). As Larner says, any plane can do well once you crack the code; I've just not figured it out yet for the SE we have in game.

 

Incidentally, at least 2 of my deaths were from accidentally bailing out when I meant to start recording or from friendly crashes! The two controls for record and eject are dangerously close together when you're wearing a VR headset. Who wants to bail out without a chute in a sim other than for comic value???

 

Edited by No56_Waggaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do B&Z with Se5a alone vs 2 enemy players  if I'm able to push them further down after ich of my attack.  

Share this post


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

I will be happy to share with any information about the FM of this aircraft that I consider useful

 

Please do, emely! I'm curious to hear how the best pilots have made the most of the S.E.5a.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I pretty much only fly the SE when on the Entente side, and reading this thread has made me feel much happier about myself as a virtual pilot.  Because, yes, I find the only way to engage and survive is to bounce very accurately on unsuspecting prey.  If you do not cripple in the first pass, then you just have to keep trucking on down.  Any sort of a dogfight almost invariably ends in your demise.  So you keep diving  down, and down.  Assuming  you don't get followed, you may then begin to climb back to repeat the process.

 

You can pretty much swap SE with SPAD and have the same quote. 

 

The two are certainly much more different in practice and feel. 

 

It's really odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Even if someone like that comes along we won't believe him we'll just tell him if his airplane doesn't have the exact right prop or engine that he's an idiot who doesn't know any better than us like we did to chilli31.

 

Ya a lot of "experts" in here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:



It's not as much "improved" as "specialised". It loses horspower differently with altitude,  it has higher service ceiling, it is able to archieve higher top speed at altitude - which means sustaining the speed well and still accelerating a bit more, not accelerating fast. It may have a cruising propeller pitched exactly for that - steady buildup of speed. That may be what 1PL describe as "car stuck on 6th gear". Not ideal setup when you get slow, low on energy at 9000 feet and need to "retain" it via quick application of brute force engine output. Meanwhile, an engine optimalised for lower altitude, with climbing 4-blade prop will be better when going at low speed, possibly turning with Albatros, and keep accelerating the plane enough to sustain the flight. In a race, Viper will outrun H-S... eventually. In a turn, H-S will keep dragging the frame much longer.

 


I still think the difference would be marginal enough that the Viper S.E.5a should perform similarly in a dogfight. Take the 150hp S.E.5. While flying it, Albert Ball apparently outflew and got the better of Lothar von Richthofen - who was flying a D.III at the time, arguably a better dogfighter than the D.Va, but certainly very similar - before his unfortunate fatal accident in the clouds. He also was credited with 11 victories on the S.E.5, and I'll point out that Ball was known for being a reckless dogfighter, with his flying being quite 'Voss-like', if you will, and that six of those 11 were Albatros D.IIIs.

 

 The S.E.5 was generally considered to be underpowered, yet could certainly hold its own while turning if the historical accounts are anything to go by. I've also read no pilot accounts, nor seen any other evidence, that the 4-bladed prop variant was significantly better in a turning fight than other variants. I can see how it might have a minor effect on the airframe's turning ability, but I still don't believe that switching prop / engine to re-optimise the S.E. can have such a drastic effect on its manoeuvrability. 

...of course, I can't speak with any real authority. I've never flown an S.E. All I know is from what I've read...but I might add that the Shuttleworth Collection's chief test pilot, "Dodge" Bailey, describes their S.E.5a's flight characteristics as being like an overpowered Tiger Moth (paraphrasing).

 

Theirs, F-904, is a Woseley-powered S.E., built in 1918 and with one Fokker D.VII to its credit. 

But, back to our S.E...on paper it's a great aircraft. Fast top speed, fast dive speed, good armament, etc. What I've been finding is that in actual combat it's a complete dog. It feels to me like it bleeds energy at an unbelievably rapid rate, which you can really feel when you have a hun on your six and you have to fight for your life. 

To compare as a SPAD pilot...the S.XIII feels like a real energy fighter (which, of course, it is). She has a very nice zoom and, in a pinch, you can use her energy retention to potentially save your life. When it comes to more desperate fighting, I.E being caught low by a German, the SPAD, of course, loses out in manoeuvrability. BUT, if the pilot is energy-aware then they can hold their own. I've even won one or two turning fights against German scouts by using the SPAD's energy retention. 

The FC S.E.5a, however, is completely defenceless in the same situation. Despite trying to be as energy-efficient as possible, within a second or two the plane is violently shaking and completely incapable of any kind of manoeuvres past extremely wide turns. This is due to the sheer speed in which it loses its energy which, when compared to the SPAD, is alarming. I'll also say that I've fought in the S.E.5a from every altitude from 4,000m to sea level and it suffers the same rapid energy loss irregardless of height. 

 


To my thinking, this is a flaw in the current FM...and one that seriously affects the S.E's capabilities, rendering it generally ineffective at anything except hunting in packs or bouncing completely unaware prey. It certainly doesn't feel like "The Acemaker".

 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My contention is that, the SE5a is probably correct, when it comes to energy retention, the trouble is everything else is probably wrong, most obviously apparent with the Albatros and Pflaz DIII with their silly, no stall, full elevator, level turns.  Somehow I can't see the developers changing the parameters of everything else, just to fit in with the SE5a. A more powerful engine, maybe the 220hp is sufficient  and a courser pitched propeller, might make the SE5a feel more correct ( better acceleration and thrust in the climb, much as is the difference between the VII and "f")  but if that was done then the argument would be for better engines, Mods/choices, for all and we then wouldn't be any further on than we are now. The small size,, lighter weight,  extra 40hp and good manners should really add up to something more than a shoot and scoot type aircraft when confronting last years has been's.  For some reason the extra horse power in an "f" makes ALL the difference, in an SE5a it makes it barely adequate, God forbid they ever decide to do a plain SE5 with only 150hp, it would probably struggle to summon the energy to gather it's skirts, let alone have enough left over to lift itself off the ground and become airborne.

 

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My peripheral vision keeps telling my brain this thread is called 'Se5a Hoes'.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No56_Badger85 said:

 

Please do, emely! I'm curious to hear how the best pilots have made the most of the S.E.5a.

Here is another case of mine .. I started dancing with the D7f pilot, but it didn’t work out very well for me.  Meanwhile, from the side came the albatross 5 and a pair of bullets sent my pilot to the knockout.  SeVa without control went into a dive, he got out of it and began to climb.  When the pilot came to his senses, six were three - D7f, albatross and Dr1.  There was enough speed to get away from everyone, looking at the inscription "engine is damaged" There is no flight ending in the video .. I did not see the tree at the landing, collided with it and died 😞Excellent statistics for the flight - zero wins and one death)))

At least there is one conclusion - in a SeVa dive, it can even get away from D7f (like Spad and Dolphin too)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ that would be a good description of most of my sorties in FC( apart from the initial 20min of stooging around to get to an altitude which might give you a 50:50 chance of surviving an encounter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mentioned it already in another post, the initial SE5a in RoF (before the FM revision) was very close to most of the accounts' desciptions. Properly geared, fenomenal climbing turn, superb accelaration but easily to overrev in a dive (when someone was deaf or not looking at the control). Still a superior diver though.

 

This SE5a in FC is screwed in almost every aspect. I would also agree with the observation that it seems as if the hitbox of the SE5a pilot is twice as big as in other planes!?

 

It is almost the same level of self-punishment flying the FC SE5a as in RoF with the N28 - those who flew it, know what I mean.

 

Albatros DVa is way too slow as well, we are lacking the engine variants but we have what we have and do not expect a miracle that suddenly someone with real passion and knowledge will review in details all the short comings - end of the story.

 

S! and happy flying

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Mentioned it already in another post, the initial SE5a in RoF (before the FM revision) was very close to most of the accounts' desciptions. Properly geared, fenomenal climbing turn, superb accelaration but easily to overrev in a dive (when someone was deaf or not looking at the control). Still a superior diver though.

 

This SE5a in FC is screwed in almost every aspect. I would also agree with the observation that it seems as if the hitbox of the SE5a pilot is twice as big as in other planes!?

 

 

Yes I clearly remember the first version of the Se5a in RoF and her performance felt right as per the many pilot's journals and accounts I've read. Except the "glass engine." I'd never read that the engine over-revved so easily in a dive. So complaints were made to correct it. Of course, this is anecdotal and AnPetrovich hates anecdotes. So I went to Gene Demarco of the Vintage Aviator (this was somewhere between 2011 and 2012 I think - memory fades a bit these days) and he was not aware of this issue in the accurate Se5a replicas he had flown. There were also many other contributers with varying facts and statistics. AnPetrovich then sprang into action.

 

The "glass engine" was fixed and a "revised" FM introduced. But as almost everyone has said in this thread, the "revised" version (then and now) flies like a dog with extreme loss of power even in a slight climb. Revs just disappear. More complaints. But AnPetrovich remained resolute. His aeronautic theories and mathematics were not to be judged. He was not going to revise it again. I can understand this somewhat but we are still left with a dog of a thing that looks unlikely to be corrected in my lifetime. It's what eventually turned me off RoF   … and I was hoping FC's Se5a would be better. But it's just as bad. Such a shame and such a bad representation of a fine aircraft for its day.

 

Maybe I need to learn to fly a [shudder] Camel or go with the Spad. Or perhaps the D7f. Or anything but the Se5a in its current carnation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, that thing about „overrevving“ is a bit off, as you can overspeed those engines by applying external force (windmilling in a dive) without the engine taking damage. What happens is just that the engine experiences a sudden power drop  above max revs, as valve timings are not suitable anymore. As well as making funny sounds because of that and because of an overspeeding prop. But by no means it should „get oiled“. This in contrast to rotaries that litterally can get torn apart by centrifugal forces.

 

Having said that, I find the four bladed prop rather odd. Regarding exact dimensions I find such, namely 2,362 m diameter (effectively 2,38 m they say) and 3,34 m pitch.

 

They say in wiki that the Adder does 200 hp at 2000 rpm, as opposed to the Hisso that it is based on that does 200 hp at 2300 rpm. Why? they have even the same compression. English horses as opposed to French ones?

 

Now, prop. If we indeed have 2000 rpm, then this four bladed prop would have a tip speed of only 150 m/s, as opposed to 250 m/s with any propeller you want to spend money for, lest trust it with your life. At 2000 rpm, the plane is set for 225 km/h, assuming what can be normal prop efficiency. At 2300 rpm, it would be set for almost 260 km/h, hence I think this is really a 2000 rpm prop.

 

Still, I gave this prop the benefit of the doubt by only giving it 5% slip (as you‘d have on your Cessna trimmed for cruise). But such a slow turning prop would surely be far less effective. What they did, they made it turn as slow as props from rotaries. Being diameter limited, they added more blades. Still, I‘d expext the plane to get far less mileage from this arrangement than the two blade prop. I guess this is the reason why almost nobody else used this arrangement. I can find no upside to it, it even adds weight for losing performance.

 

Makes me think that any jubilant account of this arrangement mist come from someone who flew Quirks or Morane Parasols before.

 

16 minutes ago, catchov said:

I'd never read that the engine over-revved so easily in a dive.

They do overrev, but they take no damage like that, as said above. The „oiling“ in the game probably comes from the sim assuming a direct correlation between rpm and power output, and above a certain power rating, the engine blows. While this is certainly true, power output drops soon above max. rated revs. You need to overrev the engine by more than 1000 rpm to make it take damage. As it loses load from the power drop, these slow turning engines have more margin regarding piston speed.

 

Edit: To me it appears almost as if the propeller is sort of the invisible rounding factor to make the plane go to the desired speed, regardless of its dimensions. Hence it is not even stated what we have mounted on our engines. For some, this makes sense as only one prop/engine combo is used, but in other cases they had many different props and gearings.

That said, being precise here would be some work.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like most in the community are in agreement. If the devs were willing to roll back the Camel to pre nerf status, is it worth asking the same through a poll of the SE (except glass engine)?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, No56_Waggaz said:

It sounds like most in the community are in agreement. If the devs were willing to roll back the Camel to pre nerf status, is it worth asking the same through a poll of the SE (except glass engine)?

 

 

Don't think so , AnPetrovich put to much work in new Se5a FM. New FM was made in  2011... 

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/22802-se5a-fm-review-fixes/page-1

 

They do don't roll back camel they roll back all besides dr.1 which was first plane ported before they change they mind and switch to FM before December 2014.

 

Hoping for any ww1 FM work is just unrealistic , they are busy for long time ahead, they have no time and resources to just port airplanes ....

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Hoping for any ww1 FM work is just unrealistic , they are busy for long time ahead, they have no time and resources to just port airplanes ....

 

Yes, definitely.

 

We need to live with it.

 

The best way for SE5a pilots, is to fly with a wingman.

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

×
×
  • Create New...