S.E.5a Woes

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I thought the reason that the sopwith triplane was phased out was because command "went a different way", and not so much because of the performance.

 

That said, some of the flight models for the RoF aircraft, before and after the nerf, are a bit janky in how they interact with each other.  By that I mean that if you take aircraft from the same "era" of the great war (late war, bloody april, fokker scourge, etc), they interacted with each other pretty much as expected.  However, when you took aircraft from different "eras" (and especially started messing with fuel) you got some weird outcomes, like sopwith pups being a good match for DR1s, or Albatross struggling to handle N11s.

Edited May 9, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Garven]

Remember reading somewhere the Tripe-hound was a pain to work on/repair.

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I thought the reason that the sopwith triplane was phased out was because command "went a different way", and not so much because of the performance.

 

I think the shared code thing was widely mentioned at the time. Sort of unquestioned. There might be old threads about it.

 

6 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Citation required.

 

The RNAS were at this time converting their fighter squadrons from Triplanes to Bentley-engined Camels because their pilots had found that the latest mark of Albatros, the D-V, was slightly superior to the Triplane. This favored treatment, so baffling to indignant RFC pilots flying obsolete and obsolescent aeroplanes, was one of the consequences of years of maladministration by the higher echelons of the RFC, and RNAS. [No Parachute - Gould Lee]

[HagarTheHorrible]

I was given to understand that the Tripe was superior to the Albatros D. III.   The DV, after remedial strengthening (DVa), was no better, performance wise, than the D.III it replaced, ergo..........  The Tripe wasn’t relegated because it became obsolete, but because it was more difficult to service, probably more expensive to build (three wings) and designs had moved on.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I was given to understand that the Tripe was superior to the Albatros D. III.   The DV, after remedial strengthening (DVa), was no better, performance wise, than the D.III it replaced, ergo..........  The Tripe wasn’t relegated because it became obsolete, but because it was more difficult to service, probably more expensive to build (three wings) and designs had moved on.

Yes, designs had moved on.  The T'n'B dogfighter was an evolutionary dead-end.  Fly fast and hit hard became the way to go.  This evolution was echoed in WW2 - early on, the Spit, the 109, and the Zero were dominant, but as the conflict developed, we saw the 190, the Tempest and the Corsair (to name but a few) come to the fore.

 

Which brings us back to the OP.  By most accounts the SE was the 190 (substitute airframe you feel appropriate here) of its day, and yet we're not getting that vibe in MP

[Cynic_Al]

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

their pilots had found that the latest mark of Albatros, the D-V, was slightly superior to the Triplane.

 

How do you get 'toppled' out of that?  It's about as vague a description as could be written; I don't see how it could refer to anything other than horizontal speed.   

I'd say the only way an Albatros could could topple the Triplane would be by crashing into a parked one.

[No.23_Triggers]

33 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Which brings us back to the OP.  

It was a valiant attempt - but I think this is the Tripehound Woes thread now ?

[J5_Adam]

57 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

How do you get 'toppled' out of that?  It's about as vague a description as could be written; I don't see how it could refer to anything other than horizontal speed.   

I'd say the only way an Albatros could could topple the Triplane would be by crashing into a parked one.

 

You weren't there

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Yes, designs had moved on.  The T'n'B dogfighter was an evolutionary dead-end.  Fly fast and hit hard became the way to go.  This evolution was echoed in WW2 - early on, the Spit, the 109, and the Zero were dominant, but as the conflict developed, we saw the 190, the Tempest and the Corsair (to name but a few) come to the fore.

 

Which brings us back to the OP.  By most accounts the SE was the 190 (substitute airframe you feel appropriate here) of its day, and yet we're not getting that vibe in MP

This brings us back round to my original problem: the energy retention and RPM. The devs seem to be very open to good data to help perfect their modelling, and I hope that the Shuttleworth’s actual surviving Viper powdered bird will be useful. The Collection have already said they’d be happy to share data once they’re able to get back to work.

 

We might not have been there but their SE5 was and has a Dvii kill to its credit

[HagarTheHorrible]

If you cast your minds back to when RoF first came out and the SE5a was introduced into the game it came with a glass engine, that quickly overreved in a dive.  The developers revised the flight model so that this overreving wouldn't happen so quickly. I don't know what they did and I can't remember what effect it had on normal engine running rpm's or aircraft performance.

 

Yesterday i was reading the "Haines" manual for the SE5a and on page 29 it talks about "An engine decelerator was also fitted for emergency use".  That got me thinking about how they did that which in turn lead me to thinking about "engine braking". This can be achieved by restricting the flow of air to the cylinder heads, this slows the piston from moving in a downward stroke (put your finger over the open end of a syringe, sans needle, and then try to pull the plunger out).  This in turn got me thinking that part of the problem with overreving might be an unrestricted amount of air getting to the cylinders under normal working conditions. 

 

One of the first things to break in the FC aircraft, usually, when trying to dive fast, is the engine.  Maybe there should be more of an engine braking effect, either within the normal airflow capacity to the cylinder heads or through means of a seperate flow restrictor, if historically fitted.

 

I just couldn't quite square the circle between annecdotes of pilots fast diving their aircraft during WW1 and the climb in rev's that we get in FC when we try and do the same, in the past I had only ever thought in terms of propeller drag when considering limitations to engine rpm.

Edited May 11, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_Adam]

7 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

If you cast your minds back to when RoF first came out and the SE5a was introduced into the game it came with a glass engine, that quickly overreved in a dive.  The developers revised the flight model so that this overreving wouldn't happen so quickly. I don't know what they did and I can't remember what effect it had on normal engine running rpm's or aircraft performance.

 

It changed performance quite a bit actually. Pissed off many SE5a pilots because it couldn't climb like it it did before

[US103_Baer]

8 hours ago, Adam said:

 

It changed performance quite a bit actually. Pissed off many SE5a pilots because it couldn't climb like it it did before

Interesting. I wonder if that's when a coarser pitch prop was added as a fix

[ZachariasX]

18 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The developers revised the flight model so that this overreving wouldn't happen so quickly.

In this case, the 1.9 m pitch prop makes perfect sense. It does exactly that, make the prop spin up slower in dives.

 

If they just let the propeller and changed the engine's power curve such that power output drops (see: "volumetric efficiency") at excessive rpm and give it some more rpm margin before it comes apart, we almost had a real SE5a...

[No.23_Triggers]

So, never having experienced the "Glass Cannnon" S.E...would it kill its engine in a 0% throttle dive? 

[J5_Adam]

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

So, never having experienced the "Glass Cannnon" S.E...would it kill its engine in a 0% throttle dive? 

Yes

[No.23_Triggers]

57 minutes ago, Adam said:

Yes

Wow. And what kind of altitudes could it dive? Would it kill its own engine within 500m, 1000m, 1500, etc? 

 

This might be of some use to the technically-minded guys..a Wolseley Viper acceptance certificate dated 23-11-18

Edited May 12, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

Here’s an odd one. Had a fight vs 3 Dviifs tonight up around 4km. SE seemed to zoom ok and keep up with the Fokkers. Anyone else had a pop up high?

[HagarTheHorrible]

45 minutes ago, Waggaz said:

Here’s an odd one. Had a fight vs 3 Dviifs tonight up around 4km. SE seemed to zoom ok and keep up with the Fokkers. Anyone else had a pop up high?

 

Tested on the Arras map a couple of nights ago;

 

3400m -    SE  = 1800 rpm / 169 Kph                                    5500m -    1650 rpm / 132 Kph

                   Alb = 1460 rpm / 140 Kph                                                       1360 rpm / 114 Kph

                  D VII = 1480 rpm / 148 Kph                                                      1325 rpm / 111 kph

                  D.IIIa = 1485 rpm / 139 Kph                                                      1400 rpm / 118 Kph

 

So, at 3.5 Km the Mercedes D.III still produces above it's rated engine power, if lower than at ground level, top speed differential is approx the same  between SE and adversaries.  At 5.5 Km the SE has lost about 300 rpm from it's peak, at ground level, and it's lost a bit of it's top end speed advantage.  Although all the German aircraft, equipped with the Merc D.IIIa, have lost some engine power it is notable that the Pflaz is still running at it's rated power, (180 hp / 1400rpm) even close to it's operational ceiling.  It is to be noted that one of the suggested advantages enjoyed by the SE Viper engine was it's ability to retain much of it's power at altitude.  Clearly that isn't the case here.

 

If you lose your altitude advantage, even a bit, at this altitude, it becomes very difficult to regain, unless you want to boom and doom for a quick shot, but you will never enjoy a power advantage that might be turned into altitude or angles.

Edited May 12, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_Adam]

7 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Wow. And what kind of altitudes could it dive? Would it kill its own engine within 500m, 1000m, 1500, etc? 

 

 

I don't recall. If the RoF forum goes back to 2012 or whatever I'm sure you can find it.

Here: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/27437-se5a/page-3?hl=%2Bse5a+%2Bdive+%2Bglass+%2Bengine#entry384375

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

10 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

So, never having experienced the "Glass Cannnon" S.E...would it kill its engine in a 0% throttle dive? 

 

I would say 'NO' (however it was a long time ago). You had to hold RPMs at a certain level or alternatively hear it from the sound of the engine (in my case) where the limit was, similar to rotaries. The limit was reached very quickly as it accelerated very fast and it was annoying yes but one could get used to it since the dive was still faster than most of the oppenent scouts. The pros of that version of SE5a were by far more valuable! It was a beast. It could overclimb the Albatros in approx. 3-4 turns.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[J5_Adam]

16 minutes ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 

No, you had to hold RPMs at a certain level or alternatively hear it from the sound of the engine (in my case) where the limit was, similar to rotaries. The limit was reached very quickly as it accelerated very fast and it was annoying yes but one could get used to it since the dive was still faster than most of the oppenent scouts. The pros of that version of SE5a were by far more valuable! It was a beast. It could overclimb the Albatros in approx. 3-4 turns.

 

 

 

It still would blow the engine with closed throttle. That's why it was called a glass engine. 

However, in the case of the Dr1, if you brought the rpms to "idle" in flight, you could dive 90 degrees down without the rpms running away

Edited May 12, 2020 by Adam

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

To be honest, I don't recall exactly but I would rather still say NO, I flew with it a lot. The overrev issue happened most of the times at the beginning of the dive as that SE5a reached the limit very fast. Anyway, who cares now - there is no tool which can retrieve a RoF flight model from something like 10 years ago? We had tracks but with each new version the old tracks become unusable.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[J5_Adam]

The rpm limit was 2100 or 2200 or something

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

4 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

 

However, in the case of the Dr1, if you brought the rpms to "idle" in flight, you could dive 90 degrees down without the rpms running away

 

Where as, in the real world, closing the Block Tube / throttle in that manner would have created a rich mix and a dead engine, for several seconds, possibly an engine fire or damaging backfire, unless the Fine adjustment was retarded as well.

[J5_Adam]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Where as, in the real world, closing the Block Tube / throttle in that manner would have created a rich mix and a dead engine, for several seconds, possibly an engine fire or damaging backfire, unless the Fine adjustment was retarded as well.

 

RoF/FC doesn't come close to the real engine management. Right now there are hardly any players playing this. Could you imagine if they modeled for instance the 110hp camel and it;s engine management? No one would flight it. LOL

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Adam

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

To be honest, I don't recall exactly but I would rather still say NO, I flew with it a lot. The overrev issue happened most of the times at the beginning of the dive as that SE5a reached the limit very fast. Anyway, who cares now - there is no tool which can retrieve a RoF flight model from something like 10 years ago? We had tracks but with each new version the old tracks become unusable.

 

The good news is that the devs do have access to the older FMs; it’s how they rolled back the Camel to pre nerf. 

[emely]

SeVa needs an engine and propeller from Dolphin, this will solve all problems ?

[No.23_Starling]

16 hours ago, emely said:

SeVa needs an engine and propeller from Dolphin, this will solve all problems ?

Is this humour? I’m English so I only understand silly walks etc

[emely]

1 hour ago, Waggaz said:

Is this humour? I’m English so I only understand silly walks etc

This is partly humor.  But you can look at this proposal from another perspective.  The engines on these aircraft are almost the same, but at Dolphin we have revolutions close to the maximum power in horizontal flight, and there are no problems diving with a closed throttle.  This is what we want to see on SE.

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, emely said:

This is partly humor.  But you can look at this proposal from another perspective.  The engines on these aircraft are almost the same, but at Dolphin we have revolutions close to the maximum power in horizontal flight, and there are no problems diving with a closed throttle.  This is what we want to see on SE.

How’s the energy retention on the Dolphin?

[emely]

13 hours ago, Waggaz said:

How’s the energy retention on the Dolphin?

He holds great energy, sir ?

If without jokes, then I think he is not much better than SE in this.  But you can check it yourself ? 

 

[Cynic_Al]

On 5/12/2020 at 11:12 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

So, at 3.5 Km the Mercedes D.III still produces above it's rated engine power, if lower than at ground level, top speed differential is approx the same  between SE and adversaries.  At 5.5 Km the SE has lost about 300 rpm from it's peak, at ground level, and it's lost a bit of it's top end speed advantage.  Although all the German aircraft, equipped with the Merc D.IIIa, have lost some engine power it is notable that the Pflaz is still running at it's rated power, (180 hp / 1400rpm) even close to it's operational ceiling.  It is to be noted that one of the suggested advantages enjoyed by the SE Viper engine was it's ability to retain much of it's power at altitude.  Clearly that isn't the case here.

 

Your results are from a 'simulation' based on an undisclosed formula, but we'll leave that aside.  Although it would be better to speak in terms of torque, for a given propeller to achieve X RPM at 3.5km, requires significantly less power than at ground level, which makes a complete nonsense of the above.

[Cynic_Al]

On 5/9/2020 at 11:40 PM, Adam said:

 

You weren't there

 

That depends entirely upon one's personal belief system, but that's a matter for an entirely different type of forum, not to say user.

[No.23_Starling]

Once we have performance data from one or more actual planes, what’s the process for submitting it to the devs? Is there a form or some such?

[ST_Catchov]

On 4/2/2020 at 3:18 AM, US93_Larner said:

 

Hopefully we'll get this Email sent away to Shuttleworth soon. I'm particularly curious about the acceleration of their S.E. compared to our FC equivalent. 
 

 

Any update Larner? I love the Se5a but it's a castrated dog in FC. I normally resist the urge to fly it because of that. But I weakened last night. It's still a dog.

[No.23_Triggers]

Nothing yet I'm afraid, @catchov. Once word comes through Wagz (now @US93_Rummell) will be the one to get the email! 

[No.23_Starling]

I’ve not heard back yet from Shuttleworth. They’re been on lockdown like the rest of the country - I’ll email them and see when they will likely reopen. Salute guys ?

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Vintage Aviator may also be a possibility. Not sure when they open up. They have a replica(s?) and New Zealand seems to have limited the coronavirus. My feeling is that we've never had a fully representative SE5a in ROF or FC. In ROF, the plane seems to accelerate better but the wings fold very easily on it. In FC, it's kind of a dog but the wing folding, at least undamaged, isn't as bad. You'll feel the differences pretty strongly if you go back and forth between ROF and FC. My best luck with the SE5a has been as a "hit n' git" approach or working as a team with other SE5as or with Bristols. It's a bear to fight a D.VIIF alone in the SE5a right now.

[ST_Catchov]

I'm probably repeating myself yet again but oh well …. the original "glass engine"Se5a in Rof was good. It felt right to me as per pilot accounts. Except for the glass engine. But none of this bleeding revs, poor acceleration rubbish. I wish we'd kept quiet about the glass engine and learnt to live with it. In hindsight, far better than what we have now. Bloody hindsight!

[No.23_Starling]

I’ve just heard back from Shuttleworth. The collection is still under lockdown although it’s possible they will reopen early next month, at which point they will start looking at these kinds of enquiries. In the meantime it might be worth a few of us drawing up a set of questions so we have our technical query ready to go. Do PM me if you have ideas (Hagar and Larner have been very helpful already)