S.E.5a Woes

[SeaW0lf]

Those moves were probably thoroughly rehearsed, and then I think we can’t be based by that. We have footage from Hell’s Angels I think and they turn literally on a dime, differently from this footage above.

 

Either these guys go through meticulous tests, or people do some detailed simulations with supercomputers. Otherwise I think we are left with anecdotal accounts. For example, I think it was Cecil Lewis that said that the Spad turned better than the SE5a (perhaps because he was getting a beating in a mock fight). But I do think the Spad and the SE5a should turn better, although not to the level of the D7.  

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

Those moves were probably thoroughly rehearsed, and then I think we can’t be based by that. We have footage from Hell’s Angels I think and they turn literally on a dime, differently from this footage above.

 

Either these guys go through meticulous tests, or people do some detailed simulations with supercomputers. Otherwise I think we are left with anecdotal accounts. For example, I think it was Cecil Lewis that said that the Spad turned better than the SE5a (perhaps because he was getting a beating in a mock fight). But I do think the Spad and the SE5a should turn better, although not to the level of the D7.  

It was a Dolphin, not a SPAD, that Lewis describes as turning better - the pilot was a friend of his and said something along the lines of "So you still haven't learned to fly yet?" after beating him in the mock fight, LOL! 

The posting of the video was more to demonstrate that the S.E can hold a tight sustained turn without shaking, quivering and dropping out the sky, rather than saying it could turn with a D.VII! I agree that it shouldn't be as manoeuvrable as a D7. I think, from reading what the pilots said, the S.E should probably have an increased turn ability and the Albatros / Pfalz should probably be lessened - especially in relation to the D7. I don't know if the D7 can turn with an Alb or not, but I defo think the difference is very slim if it's there. 

There's an excerpt in Duncan Grinnell-Milne's book that talks about the pilots of No.56 discussing how to tackle the then-new Fokker D7s. They describe the tactics we largely see S.E. pilots using now - namely, BnZ - and cite the D7 as being the superior turn fighter. Other sources (McCudden's memoirs, etc) talk about freely turning with Albs. However - an interesting point is one of the pilots mention "They (D7s) can generally outmanoeuvre you" - which would imply that the experienced S.E pilot could get one over on a D7 pilot. 

In my opinion and personal FC experience, we see that exhibited with the SPAD, but NOT the S.E. In certain situations, I've outmanoeuvred and shot down D.VIIs while flying the S.XIII - although the D7 turns tighter, the SPAD can hold its own when you know its strengths and limits. I've never come close to the same result in an S.E.

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

16 hours ago, No56_Waggaz said:

Has anyone played with the RPM performance on the FC Albie? I wonder whether this is the cause of our pain, and maybe worth investigation.

 

No its not. Have you actually tried to fight an S.E.5a in an Albatros? I wouldn't woe too much about the Entente planes, its more the Central planes that needs their correct engine variants for that period of the time. The S.E.5a is fine. It has a higher top speed than in RoF but slower acceleration (everything comes with a prize) due to the 2 bladed prop. You can still retain enough energy to keep your enemy busy evading you all the time. Just don't burn all of your energy in stupid turning fights against superior turners. The only thing that the Albie is able to do is taking pot shots. These are now more accurate than in RoF because of the diffrent bullet dispersion modell. But when hit just dive to the safety of the ground. No Central plane is able to follow and then rinse and repeat. Also the S.E.5a is able to tilt its guns and bring them on target what no other Central plane is able to do without sacrificing all of its potential energy. It has the fastest top speed and roll rate ingame. And last but not least the Lewis gun has a very high rate of fire because it is not behind an interrupter gear. I really don't understand your worries here. The S.E.5a is a superb plane. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Triggers]

20 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

No its not. Have you actually tried to fight an S.E.5a in an Albatros? I wouldn't woe too much about the Entente planes, its more the Central planes that needs their correct engine variants for that period of the time. The S.E.5a is fine. It has a higher top speed than in RoF but slower acceleration (everything comes with a prize) due to the 2 bladed prop. You can still retain enough energy to keep your enemy busy evading you all the time. Just don't burn all of your energy in stupid turning fights against superior turners. The only thing that the Albie is able to do is taking pot shots. These are now more accurate than in RoF because of the diffrent bullet dispersion modell. But when hit just dive to the safety of the ground. No Central plane is able to follow and then rinse and repeat. Also the S.E.5a is able to tilt its guns and bring them on target what no other Central plane is able to do. It has the fastest top speed and roll rate ingame. And last but not least the Lewis gun has a very high rate of fire because it is not behind an interrupter gear. I really don't understand your worries here. The S.E.5a is a superb plane. 

I'm the designated "training dummy" for the 3rd P.G - meaning that I've fought some of the most capable BnZ pilots in the game while flying the Albatros. Even the most proficient S.E. pilots among us find it hard to maintain an advantage over the Albatros for any sustained period of time. The slower acceleration you mention is leading to the S.E. drastically underperforming compared to historical accounts of the aircraft's specific strengths (zooming after a dive, maintaining turn, etc - all strengths the Viper SE5a also had). The German plane engines (I agree we need them) is a different discussion. 

Don't get me wrong. I like the S.E. a lot in FC - more so every time I fly her, in fact - but she is NOT flying up to scratch. I bet if the SPAD's visibility was comparable, you wouldn't see an S.E. in the sky. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

14 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I'm the designated "training dummy" for the 3rd P.G - meaning that I've fought some of the most capable BnZ pilots in the game while flying the Albatros. Even the most proficient S.E. pilots among us find it hard to maintain an advantage over the Albatros for any sustained period of time.

 

Well if you don't use your first free pass to cripple your enemy then dive to safety with your superior speed and rinse and repeat. There is nothing the Albatros is able to do to stop that. 

 

Central Powers is in a much worse situation:

 

Fokker Dr.I performs weaker than in Rof with no other benefits

Albatros D.Va performs weaker than in RoF with no other benefits

 

Against Ententes

 

S.E5a does not have the same acceleration than in RoF but does have a higher top speed.

Camel performs better than in RoF

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[SeaW0lf]

42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

It was a Dolphin, not a SPAD, that Lewis describes as turning better - the pilot was a friend of his and said something along the lines of "So you still haven't learned to fly yet?" after beating him in the mock fight, LOL!

 

He mentions the Spad as well (from my Kindle book): I must add that both the Sopwith Dolphin and the Spad were more maneuverable that the SE5. So that given equal flying ability, they would win.

 

But he might be suspect to talk about mock fights, I agree ?

[No.23_Triggers]

21 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

Well if you don't use your first free pass to cripple your enemy then dive to safety with your superior speed and rinse and repeat. There is nothing the Albatros is able to do to stop that. 

I don't think I understand what your argument is. We're talking about historically lacking aspects of the current S.E.5a in FC. 

The S.E. can escape an Albatros in a dive, which is perfectly historical...what isn't historical is that the S.E. can only make single opportunistic attacks vs an Albatros, and is as good as dead if it sticks around to fight for any period of time. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[HagarTheHorrible]

Wolsely W.4A Viper
Type: 8-cylinder, upright, 90 degree Vee engine 
Bore: 4.72 in (120 mm) 
Stroke: 5.12 in (130 mm) 
Displacement: 716.8 cu in (11.77 L) 
Dry weight: 500 lb
Fuel system: Twin Zenith-Duplex carburettors 
Cooling system: Liquid-cooled 
Reduction gear: Direct drive, Right-hand tractor
Power output: 200 hp at 2,000 rpm (takeoff power) 
Compression ratio: 5.3:1

 

From this link;  http://www.all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/64-engines-power/4913-hispano-suiza-8a

 

Anybody get 2000 rpm at take off ?

 

 The whole engine/prop area isn’t one I’m overly familiar, or comfortable with, but I am willing to learn.  I’ve read, here on these forums, that the SE5a prop is pitched for speed, to my mind that means finely pitched, which to me would suggest that airspeed and load factor would have less impact on engine rpm than a courser pitched propeller, such as the one fitted to the DR1, for example, or for that matter any slower revving engine that needs to get the most speed from every revolution.  Why is it that the SE5a engine loses so many rpm’s compared to other similarly equipped engines ?

Edited March 30, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J99_Sizzlorr]

26 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I don't think I understand what your argument is. We're talking about historically lacking aspects of the current S.E.5a in FC. 

The S.E. can escape an Albatros in a dive, which is perfectly historical...what isn't historical is that the S.E. can only make single opportunistic attacks vs an Albatros, and is as good as dead if it sticks around to fight for any period of time. 

 

Then don't stick around to fight. Disengage and use the superior speed and come back later to try again if you mess up your first pass. My argument is that we have bigger problems on our hands than the S.E.5a propeller setup. Try to focus on the strength of your aircraft not on the strength of that of your opponents. The S.E.5a has a slower acceleration and weaker climbing performance but higher top speed due to the prop blade change. Still the Viper engine is impossible to overrev. Use it in power dives and you will see you can get enough altitude out of your dive. You just need to fly the S.E5a diffrently than in RoF, because it has a diffrent setup. An S.E.5a in good hands is more than capable to deal with an Albatros. And it can deal more than a single opportunistic attack against the Albatros.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Triggers]

12 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

Then don't stick around to fight. Disengage and use the superior speed and come back later to try again if you mess up your first pass. My argument is to focus on the strength of your aircraft not on the strength of that of your opponents. The S.E.5a has a slower acceleration and weaker climbing performance but higher top speed due to the prop blade change. Still the Viper engine is impossible to overrev. Use it in power dives and you will see you can get enough altitude out of your dive. You just need to fly the S.E5a diffrently than in RoF, because it has a diffrent setup. An S.E.5a in good hands is more than capable to deal with an Albatros. And it can deal more than a single opportunistic attack against the Albatros.

I think you're missing the point of the thread! 

We're not talking about what the current Flying Circus S.E.5a can or can't do in a FC dogfight, or what the RoF S.E could do in a RoF fight...we're talking about what the real S.E. could do in a real fight. And a real S.E, if the pilots who flew them in combat are any good source of information (which, of course, they are,) were more manoeuvrable, could sustain a turn far better, and could zoom-climb back to altitude and stay on top of a fight much better. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

On 3/26/2020 at 7:44 AM, US93_Larner said:

Recently I've been wondering just what happened to the S.E.5a in Flying Circus.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 7:44 AM, US93_Larner said:

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. 

 

On 3/26/2020 at 7:44 AM, US93_Larner said:

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.

 

Well than i totally missed the point. But these quotes from the op suggest we are actually talking about FC S.E.5a and RoF S.E.5a. When talking about what the real S.E.5a could do, best to describe about which real S.E.5a we are talking. A Viper or Hispanio Suiza8a or 8b engined one with 2 or 4 bladed propeller. Don't mix those two up then.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[SeaW0lf]

We still have some conflicting information, as I mentioned Cecil Lewis. He could have been a dog in dogfights, but he probably [certainly] had talks at the mass with other pilots (I was surprised when I saw that quote). From my point of view, flying the still nerfed Dr1, people do silly mistakes when flying the SE5a. We also don't have trained / specialized SE5a squadrons yet, and lots of novices are flying her.

 

I don't like the SE5a, but I remember playing with it at the Kuban map Flugpark and having no problems against Albies and Pfalzes (boy, we do need a furball expert server). What I think is telling is that how could the ROF SE5a dominate the uber DVa in ROF and suck against the nerfed DVa in FC? In theory, it does not make sense, because both DVas are quite different in performance. Perhaps when some veterans start to get together or get acquainted with FC, we might see the real picture? It would be nice to find a way to measure energy retention.

 

But I would be curious to test the original, first SE5a from ROF.

Edited March 30, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 minute ago, SeaW0lf said:

We still have some conflicting information, as I mentioned Cecil Lewis.

 About which S.E.5a is he talking? Which engine setup? Which propeller? Which point in time in the war?

[No.23_Triggers]

8 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well than i totally missed the point. But these quotes from the op suggest we are actually talking about FC S.E.5a and RoF S.E.5a. When talking about what the real S.E.5a could do best to describe about which real S.E.5a we are talking. A Viper or Hispanio Suiza8a or 8b engined one with 2 or 4 bladed propeller. Don't mix those two up then.

Yep. You did. The FC S.E.5a is the initial reference point for a discussion about revising the FM to better represent the real S.E, and how the more realistically-FM'd S.E.5a should behave. In other words, we're not talking about what the current FC S.E.5a can do, past comparing to historical accounts. Instead, we're talking about what it should do. Grinnell-Milne's memoir talks about the S.E. being able to consistently maintain altitude advantage above Fokker D.VIIs. Grinnell-Milne flew a Viper-engined S.E, at the time where No.56 was equipped with the type. In his memoirs, a pilot of No.56 also mentions that you shouldn't turn with D.VIIs until you were experienced, implying that the S.E. was better matched in a turning engagement than the current FC match-up. Couldn't out turn a D.VII, but wasn't helpless against one either. 

I'll also reiterate that I'm yet to read any pilot account where the pilots who flew S.E's make any notable distinction between the Viper and the HS S.E.5as. If you can provide one, please do. Doing so would help the discussion. 


 

[SeaW0lf]

3 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 About which S.E.5a is he talking? Which engine setup? Which propeller? Which point in time in the war?

 

He's mentioning that his SE had a similar engine to the 200HP Hispano Spad, so it was a SE5a? During this mock fight in particular, it was a week before Guynemer died (the one he had a mock fight with in this occasion), so September 1917. He was also talking in retrospect, saying that both the Dolphin and the Spad "were", and then he's talking in general. And Cecil Lewis saw the end of the war.

 

I'm not saying it was as he described, but it is an account that has to be weighted.

[No.23_Triggers]

18 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

But I would be curious to test the original, first SE5a from ROF.

I was never around for the original RoF S.E.5a FM, but some of the comments seem to suggest that it might have been closer to the historical S.E.5a (minus the glass engine part). I'd like to see how it fared in FC as well...

[J99_Sizzlorr]

11 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Yep. You did. The FC S.E.5a is the initial reference point for a discussion about revising the FM to better represent the real S.E, and how the more realistically-FM'd S.E.5a should behave. In other words, we're not talking about what the current FC S.E.5a can do, past comparing to historical accounts. Instead, we're talking about what it should do. Grinnell-Milne's memoir talks about the S.E. being able to consistently maintain altitude advantage above Fokker D.VIIs. Grinnell-Milne flew a Viper-engined S.E, at the time where No.56 was equipped with the type. In his memoirs, a pilot of No.56 also mentions that you shouldn't turn with D.VIIs until you were experienced, implying that the S.E. was better matched in a turning engagement than the current FC match-up. Couldn't out turn a D.VII, but wasn't helpless against one either. 

I'll also reiterate that I'm yet to read any pilot account where the pilots who flew S.E's make any notable distinction between the Viper and the HS S.E.5as. If you can provide one, please do. Doing so would help the discussion. 
 

 

Those anecdotes are really no hard evidence. About which Fokker D.VII is he talking? Which time in the war? Which propeller configuration did his S.E.5a have? There is no real S.E. it had diffrent configurations during the war. So better to clarify about which one you are talking.

 

9 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

He's mentioning that his SE had a similar engine to the 200HP Hispano Spad, so it was a SE5a?

 

Only the first prototypes were called S.E.5 after several changes to the engine and to some extend on the airframe it was called S.E.5a, because the S.E.5 had at that time a bad reputation amongst the British pilots.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Only the first prototypes were called S.E.5 after several changes to the engine and to some extend on the airframe it was called S.E.5a, because the S.E.5 had at that time a bad reputation amongst the British pilots.

 

I said SE for short. Alex Revell writes SEs for shot in his book a lot as well. There were SE5a variants as well. What I'm saying is that if the engine had 200hp, I think it should be an SE5a already. Although my High in the Empty Blue is a book, so it would take time to research.

[J2_Trupobaw]

49 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

And a real S.E, if the pilots who flew them in combat are any good source of information (which, of course, they are,)

They are anything but. Isolated anecdotes of WW1 pilots that flew the type are unreliable and can be used to prove exactly anything if you pick sources the way you want it (compare speed of Dr.I discussions). Facts are mixed with delusions, propaganda, self- and buddy- promotion, wishful thinking and errors. Brittons, being obliged to add a "stiff upper lip" filter, are even more prone of that.

From what you said, in your tests you guys are trying to fly the S.E as if it was a Spad / RoF SE against experienced Albie pilot and found her lacking. Well, don't. Trying to match her against a simulated plane she is not, or against your favourite part of pilot tall tales, will only end in tears. Not to mention devs went through all that wishlisting back in RoF and in this product have made quite strict rules of what makes valid FM input - given how apocryphical WW1 stuff is, few data short of Chills plane qualify.

We had been in this kind of discussions ad nauseaum back in RoF. We made devs sick of it.  Ultimately, it always ends with having to go out there and re-learn the plane we have. We might as well skip to that phase.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[HagarTheHorrible]

The only way, anything, will be considered is with hard empirical evidence and NOT anecdote, however well informed.  It seems to me that the SE5a at the Shuttleworth collection is the best source of hard data, as it has an original aircraft with the correct engine.

 

 I still think that many of the woes regarding the SE5a performance can be put at the door of the engine power output, why it doesn’t reach it’s maximum rpm, and then only under specific conditions and why it is so adversely effected by engine load, compared to other aircraft in FC.

[J2_Trupobaw]

(A veterans anecdote:) I remember the planes in BoX that used adjustible stabiliser rather than trim (Bf-109 chief among them) were very sensitive to the stabiliser setting. Years ago. Cries that BF sucks in turn and zoom, answers from succesful pilots to watch the stabiliser. I don't follow WW2 stuff close enough to remember where it ended. It may be one of factors behind poor energy retention.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Triggers]

18 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

They are anything but. Isolated anecdotes of WW1 pilots that flew the type are unreliable and can be used to prove exactly anything if you pick sources the way you want it (compare speed of Dr.I discussions). Facts are mixed with delusions, propaganda, self- and buddy- promotion, wishful thinking and errors. Brittons, being obliged to add a "stiff upper lip" filter, are even more prone of that.

Agreed that pilot accounts might be embellished - but, when you have S.E.5a pilots taking about turning with Albatros pilots in many of their engagements, that alone seems to be a fair indication that the S.E could turn with Albs and come out of a fight. Dead men tell no tales, and all that. But, I will concede. You're correct - hard evidence is the best way to go. 
 

18 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

From what you said, in your tests you guys are trying to fly the S.E as if it was a Spad / RoF SE against experienced Albie pilot and found her lacking. Well, don't. Trying to match her against a simulated plane she is not, or against your favourite part of pilot tall tales, will only end in tears. 

We flew her in many different ways. Wide sweeping zoom-climbs, sharp upward climbs, turn-fighting, high yo-yos, low yo-yos, like a SPAD, like an Alb, etc etc etc. The other "Test Pilot", Biddle, is pretty prolific in just about anything he flies. We found that every which-way we flew the S.E, she seemed to encounter a pretty severe energy deficit each time. I believe it's due to the very slow RPM gain, which seems noticeably sluggish even in a dive compared to just about every other plane. 

 

15 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The only way, anything, will be considered is with hard empirical evidence and NOT anecdote, however well informed.  It seems to me that the SE5a at the Shuttleworth collection is the best source of hard data, as it has an original aircraft with the correct engine.

Agree totally! 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Well McCudden said:

 

Quote

“It was very fine to be in a machine that was faster than the Huns, and to know that one could run away just as things got too hot.”

 

Implying that he didn't linger too long in a fight but used the S.E.5as superior speed to disengage.

 

Also the S.E.5a wasn't a better turner than the Spads or even the Nieuports. Be careful with the term manouverable. It doesn't refer to turning abilties or sustained turns, but rather to the roll rate.

Also as long as you have energy you can turn inside any Albatros. But if you stay in a turnfight and don't convert your energy back to altitude you made a mistake. It bleeds energy very fast if you deflect your rudder too much.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[DD_Arthur]

14 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

They are anything but. Isolated anecdotes of virtual WW1 pilots that flew any type are unreliable and can be used to prove exactly anything if you pick sources the way you want it (compare speed of Dr.I discussions). Facts are mixed with delusions, propaganda, self- and buddy- promotion, wishful thinking and errors. 

 

Fixed that bit for you

 

As to this sentence below;  with your vast experience of foreign travel,  do you do much national stereotyping?  Presumably you'll be out with your mum planting spuds today?

 

18 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 Brittons, being obliged to add a "stiff upper lip" filter, are even more prone of that..

[SeaW0lf]

I just recalled that I wrote to the Shuttleworth regarding my research on the tilting of the Lewis gun, and they were very helpful (my e-mail was forwarded to the SE engineers and pilots). But in this case in particular, I would pay them a couple visits to talk with them in person. Since the SE is popular, I believe it would not be that difficult to find a volunteer.

[J2_Trupobaw]

15 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Also the S.E.5a wasn't a better turner than the Spads or even the Nieuports. Be careful with the term manouverable. It doesn't refer to turning abilties or sustained turns, but rather to the roll rate.

This. Maneuvrability means ease of changing planes attitude - opposite of stability, which is ease of maintaining it. S.E. is very maneuvrable, especially when trimmed to be tail-heavy, and pretty stable if trimmed nose-heavy.

11 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

As to this sentence below;  with your vast experience of foreign travel,  do you do much national stereotyping?  Presumably you'll be out with your mum planting spuds today?

 

I did read accounts from both sides. The authors cathegory of "is that for real / is he even writing about the same war?" is dominated by British. They were often writing to impress. (Arthur GoldLee is one notable exception. Alan Bott and Maurice Baring are most notorious champions so far).
(Perhaps it says more of ghost writers they had available, but it changes nothing on books reliability as source material. )

9 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I just recalled that I wrote to the Shuttleworth regarding my research on the tilting of the Lewis gun, and they were very helpful (my e-mail was forwarded to the SE engineers and pilots). But in this case in particular, I would pay them a couple visits to talk with them in person. Since the SE is popular, I believe it would not be that difficult to find a volunteer.

I believe both Waggaz and Larner live couple of hours away.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[HagarTheHorrible]

10 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I just recalled that I wrote to the Shuttleworth regarding my research on the tilting of the Lewis gun, and they were very helpful (my e-mail was forwarded to the SE engineers and pilots). But in this case in particular, I would pay them a couple visits to talk with them in person. Since the SE is popular, I believe it would not be that difficult to find a volunteer.

 

Everything, in the UK, is locked down at the moment.  Visits are out, but with pilots, or technical staff, at home twiddling their thumbs they might have time and opportunity to consider our questions.

[No.23_Triggers]

20 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Also the S.E.5a wasn't a better turner than the Spads or even the Nieuports. Be careful with the term manouverable. It doesn't refer to turning abilties or sustained turns, but rather to the roll rate.

That's a good point! We should definitely draw a line between  'Manoeuvrability' and 'Sustained Turning' for the sake of accuracy. I'd like to gather some points to ask Shuttleworth about, should they be so inclined to answer any queries about the S.E's performance, and I'll be sure to ask specifically about the sustained turn if I do. I can't say about the S.E vs. the SPAD in a turn. I imagine the 180hp S.VII certainly out-turned the S.E. The XIII might be a closer match. 

 

14 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I just recalled that I wrote to the Shuttleworth regarding my research on the tilting of the Lewis gun, and they were very helpful (my e-mail was forwarded to the SE engineers and pilots). But in this case in particular, I would pay them a couple visits to talk with them in person. Since the SE is popular, I believe it would not be that difficult to find a volunteer.

Great!! Unfortunately, as the UK is in Corona-Lockdown at the moment, an Email might have to suffice  but I find myself at Shuttleworth every now and again, and I have a couple pals who have a couple pals that are pretty cozy with the aircrew and mechanics there. I'll be sure to try and speak to the right people on my next visit! 


So, what can we summarise as the main points to ask the fine chaps at Shuttleworth about? At the moment I have: 

- Acceleration & Speed
-Ability to perform manoeuvres and at what speeds they can do so
-Tightness of turn
-Sustainability of tight turns 
-'zooming' ability 

what else? 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J2_Trupobaw]

Bear in mind that they likely are not flying the 100 years old relics at top performance :).
If you get what you can in writing, it may be easier to pass it to devs.

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, J2_Trupobaw said:

Bear in mind that they likely are not flying the 100 years old relics at top performance :).
If you get what you can in writing, it may be easier to pass it to devs.

The thought had crossed my mind. The poor old Camel pilot looked terrified just doing lazy circuits of the aerodrome last time I saw it fly ?

TVAL would probably be a much better source for aggressive S.E. flying - it's a shame they don't have any Woseleys (to my knowledge). Of course, I hear that they're pretty elusive though...

[No.23_Starling]

As Trupo and others note, the devs are sick of community complaints. You only need to read Jason’s post in the Officers Mess from Jan on the new visibility. An.Petro himself worked on the last SE FM and clearly did a ton of technical work with data rather than anecdotes. I think he and the team are more likely to response better to: “the Shuttleworth SE has this RPM and acceleration. Would you be interested to see the data?”

 

In the meantime let’s enjoy what we have and be thankful FC1 even happened at all, whilst thinking of the best approach for Shuttleworth. I’ll keep trying to find the best SE tactics for me. I suspect it will involve some wingmen - Trupo, fancy joining me this week to show me some of your moves?

 

Hagar, could you do some RPM and speed benchmarking and share, maybe even with a Dv comparison?

 

S all

[HagarTheHorrible]

20 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

That's a good point! We should definitely draw a line between  'Manoeuvrability' and 'Sustained Turning' for the sake of accuracy. I'd like to gather some points to ask Shuttleworth about, should they be so inclined to answer any queries about the S.E's performance, and I'll be sure to ask specifically about the sustained turn if I do. I can't say about the S.E vs. the SPAD in a turn. I imagine the 180hp S.VII certainly out-turned the S.E. The XIII might be a closer match. 

 

Great!! Unfortunately, as the UK is in Corona-Lockdown at the moment, an Email might have to suffice  but I find myself at Shuttleworth every now and again, and I have a couple pals who have a couple pals that are pretty cozy with the aircrew and mechanics there. I'll be sure to try and speak to the right people on my next visit! 

 

 

 

Well, if you have pal’s of pal’s who are pals with people at Shuttleworth maybe you could be kind enough to send an Email to them, specifically Andy Sephton or any of the current SE5a pilots.  The questions I would specifically have are;

 

1). What is the maximum achievable RPM at take off and what is the typical RPM at take off for the Shuttleworth  SE5a ?

 

2). Is the Viper able to maintain a consistent 2000 RPM across it’s flight regime and if not, how much does it typically drop and under what circumstances ?

 

3). Does the Viper engine only achieve it’s maximum RPM when flying at, or close to, it’s maximum speed of 120-130 mph ?

 

4).   A Shuttleworth article, by Andy Sephton  “Flying the SE5a” talks about reducing engine rpm to 1900, to prevent excess wear on the Viper engine,  Is this after take off, and still climbing or is it once a speed of 120 mph has been achieved ?

 

I think we need to keep our questions within the bounds of technical certainty (engine operating conditions etc) as opposed to theoretical  maxims that might change from pilot to pilot or when an aircraft is being flown to it’s theoretical maximum.

Edited March 30, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[No.23_Triggers]

25 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Well, if you have pal’s of pal’s who are pals with people at Shuttleworth maybe you could be kind enough to send an Email to them, specifically Andy Sephton or any of the current SE5a pilots.  The questions I would specifically have are;

 

1). What is the maximum achievable RPM at take off and what is the typical RPM at take off for the Shuttleworth  SE5a ?

 

2). Is the Viper able to maintain a consistent 2000 RPM across it’s flight regime and if not, how much does it typically drop and under what circumstances ?

 

3). Does the Viper engine only achieve it’s maximum RPM when flying at, or close to, it’s maximum speed of 120-130 mph ?

 

4).   A Shuttleworth article, by Andy Sephton  “Flying the SE5a” talks about reducing engine rpm to 1900, to prevent excess wear on the Viper engine,  Is this after take off, and still climbing or is it once a speed of 120 mph has been achieved ?

 

I think we need to keep our questions within the bounds of technical certainty (engine operating conditions etc) as opposed to theoretical  maxims that might change from pilot to pilot or when an aircraft is being flown to it’s theoretical maximum.

I'll definitely send a message out there to see if anybody can get me in touch with Mr. Sephton! 

I know the article you mention in No. 4, and it has some other interesting bits and bobs. Here it is, for those interested: https://haa-uk.aero/document/flying-the-se5a-ww1-fighter/

 

And another article by Trevor Roche: https://haa-uk.aero/document/notes-on-the-se5a/

 

A notable in-game fault seems to be the 2200 RPM upper limit. IIRC I've managed 2300 out of the Woseley, but I'll go back and double check. 
 

And here's another article by Sephton: https://haa-uk.aero/document/flying-shuttleworth-trust-aircraft/

The text relevant to the S.E.5a is copied in here: 
 

Spoiler

The Collection’s SE5A was discovered hanging in the roof of the Armstrong Whitworth Flight Shed at Whitley, Coventry in 1955. It was restored for the Collection by staff and apprentices of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and flew again in 1959. Following problems with the original Hispano-Suisa engine, it was replaced in 1975 with a Wolseley Viper. Farnborough handed over their interests in the machine on 21 October 1992 and it remains at Old Warden as the World’s only genuine flying SE5A.

First impressions of the machine are that it is small, compact and it can pack a punch with its two 0.303 inch machine guns. It has a large motor and it’s heavy, especially when trying to push it out of the hangar. On climbing in one must avoid the overhead Lewis gun otherwise a scarred forehead will result. On sitting down, the compactness of the cockpit becomes immediately apparent. I’m not particularly broad in the shoulder, but the cockpit width is forced to expand slightly as my shoulders touch the coaming. Pilots during World War 1 often cut back the coaming on their personal aircraft to provide adequate room and to customise it for their own particular needs.

Before start it is necessary to pump the fuel tanks to pressure with the hand pump on the port side of the cockpit. That done, the engine is primed by cockpit hand pump, the throttle is set, the fuel and air turned on and all is now ready for the start procedure.

A starter magneto with an external handle provides a shower of sparks for the start; one ground crew swings the propeller, another vigorously turns the starter magneto and possibly a third guards the tail to prevent a nose over. As the engine bursts into life, the starter magneto is switched off and the engine revs are monitored to prevent an oil overpressure.

The heavy weight of the aircraft provides good wheel drag, which combined with a steerable tail skid and high engine power makes taxy an enjoyable experience. Engine overheating is solved by pilot controlled slats on the front mounted cooling radiator, all the pilot has to do is monitor coolant temperature and maintain it between 65 and 90 degrees centigrade by use of the slats.
 

Take off is a revelation. The power weight ratio is high, possibly the highest of the Shuttleworth machines, and acceleration is brisk. The aircraft breaks ground quickly and cleanly and the climb speed of 65 mph gives a high nose attitude. Control response is good in all directions, especially roll with the four ailerons. However, adverse yaw is still very much apparent. A deflection of the ailerons only produces a side slip in the opposite direction to the desired roll of such a magnitude that a perfect steady heading side slip results. No matter, the rudder is light and powerful, and great pilot satisfaction can be had striving for the correct co-ordination of flying control input to achieve perfect balanced flight. 

It can now be clearly seen why the aircraft was so much loved by the pilots who flew her to war in 1918. The engine power, the control response, the gunsight in the forward view from the cockpit, the Vickers gun that protrudes from the front fuselage coaming, all combine to give the impression that this machine really does mean business. 

She’s a fighter so she’s aerobatic. Again, what a delight she is to fly. Loops and rolls are performed with ease. She may be a little loose directionally, but it’s difficult to find fault in a machine that was so far ahead of its competitors in its day. Stalls are also quite benign. The stall break occurs at about 45 mph with a wings level mush. 1990 handling qualities in an 80 year-old aircraft.
 

A landing must follow every take off. The aircraft glides and sideslips well and the approach may be made engine on or off as required. The radiator slats are closed to prevent engine cooling and the tailplane trim is set fully back to allow full elevator movement for the round out – longitudinal trim is achieved by adjusting the incidence of an all flying tailplane by use of a wheel located on the port wall of the cockpit.

Now we must appreciate the only two handling criticisms on the machine. At round out, just before the stall, a wing may drop in ground effect. A go around must not be attempted for if the wing had touched, the aileron horn may have been damaged and roll control of the machine will have been lost or at best severely degraded. Also at touch, the fuselage inertia coupled with the sprung tail skid sometimes leads to a switch back ‘bucketing’ motion that is most uncomfortable in the cockpit. The only action the pilot can take is to ride it out with the control column held hard back. A go around attempt will only lead to a broken propeller and a shock-loaded engine. That said, most landings in the aircraft are as benign as the in-flight stall. One leaves the machine with the impression that she was way ahead of her time; a great example of British engineering at the beginning of the last century.

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

On 3/26/2020 at 7:44 AM, US93_Larner said:

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).

 

To bring your Cecil Lewis quote into perspective, he was talking about the S.E.5a with 150 P.S. engine which No 56 Sqn. flew from March 1917 onwards while other squadrons like No.15, 24, 40, 41, 60, 68 and 84 recieved the 200 P.S. engined S.E.5a.

 

Quote

The S.E.5 was a fine machine it was a machine that pretty well couldn't be broken up through hard handeling in the air it had a good engine, it was reliable it was manouverable, it had no vices it was a fine aeroplane. But still it wasn't as good as the enemy whom we were send out to deal with. And this is chiefly noticeable not in manouverability but in height. If we were up at 16000 ft we would find the Albatroses and the Fokkers at 17000 and 18000ft.

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[J2_Trupobaw]

IIRC 150HP HS was really very reliable engine, 200hp much less so. No idea about Viper.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Ordered the Haines SE5a manual (Ebay), that should tell us everything we need to know, or at least how to put it back together when we brake it ?.

14 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

IIRC 150HP HS was really very reliable engine, 200hp much less so. No idea about Viper.

 

Evidently the Viper, direct drive, was very reliable (for it's time), more reliable, according to reference, than the geared HS used in the Spad XIII.

Edited March 30, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[DD_Arthur]

3 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I did read accounts from both sides. The authors cathegory of "is that for real / is he even writing about the same war?" is dominated by British. They were often writing to impress. (Arthur GoldLee is one notable exception. Alan Bott and Maurice Baring are most notorious champions so far).
(Perhaps it says more of ghost writers they had available, but it changes nothing on books reliability as source material. )

 

You have read accounts from both sides but unfortunately are unable to actually understand what you are reading due to your pre-conceived prejudices.  Rather like the whole basis of this thread.

Writers write to be read. Both Alan Bott and Maurice Baring give straightforward factual accounts of their experiences.  Neither of them needed ghost writers as they had backgrounds in journalism.

I understand pyschopathic prussians might have an appeal to certain people  but you do understand nearly all accounts from German pilots published after 1933 were mostly ghost-written and contain both nationalistic and anti-semetic views inserted by their nazi sponsors?

   

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I asked guy from "Pilot Chat: RAF SE5A At Shuttleworth Military Pageant 2018" yt video - he said 1800 RPMs during takeoff.

You guys can ask more specific question, people have now more free time to answer that kind of question.

 

regards

Edited March 30, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[J2_Trupobaw]

Now you are acting on pe-conceived prejudices (pretty dated ones, too). What psychopatic Prussians are you talking about?

Bott keeps boasting supposed archivements of his No.70 squadron. If Bott was to be believed it was crack unit manned by superb pilots (he uses every opportunity to remind reader that Sopwith they were only RFC unit to fly was highly regarded by Germans, jumping to conclusion that this reputation was archived by his squadron - and conveniently forgetting there was boatload of much more competent RNAS in same area). He got me really fascinated when I read his book, so I made effort to cross-reference his stories to learn more. Fortunately the No.70 in time period features often in early history of Jasta Boelcke so I was able to find some facts on them -  they were shot down a lot causing no casualties. Add to it tall tales backed by RFC victory confirmation standards that read well until you look the fight up book (I saw two planes go down in flames as we disengaged so we claimed two Huns down. And oh, two of our guys did not come back. [One guess what were two wrecks they reported and how many planes Germans actually lost]) . The horrifying part is, he apparently believed in what he wrote, and his account is very good look into heads of RFC before Bloody April. The sober part is, as source on anything but mindset you need the ton of salt when reading him, as his claims divide into exagerrated, wrong and beyond my ability to verify.

Baring is worse; he wasn't even a trained soldier, but dandy who got himself into uniform through connections. He was kept around for his soft skills, but was very very convinced of his insight into military aviation and irreplacability as HQ - refusing  numerous attempt to move him to diplomacy where his skills and connections would actually be useful. Said insights pretty much equaled  excuses and misconceptions behind Trenchards blunders and is great insight into mans mindset (yeah, despite the rationalisations people came up with later he did believe you can control the air as if your planes could plant a flag in enemy airspace and leave - and never noticed that the Germans are not mirroring his approach). But again, if you want to description of realities of war, you need to be careful.

The common thing about both sources? Inability to notice, or unwillingness to voice own (or own sides) shortcomings. Certanity displayed while jumping to conclussion, when word perhaps or maybe owuld be better suited. Absent in books of GoldLee who is very critical of things done wrong while praising things done right, not to mention Boelcke, Richthofen, Bohme or Fuchs who were very critical of themselves. Possibly the target readers were able to read between the lines of this, but these books just shouldn't be treated literally by modern reader.

All of this makes me cautious when reading aviator accounts, and doubly so in case of British because, in best case, there are strong cultural differences between me and intended reader. IMO pilots letters to friends and families may be the most honest source - but these rarely deal with operational details.

Edited March 30, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[ZachariasX]

36 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

All of this makes me cautious when reading aviator accounts, and doubly so in case of British because, in best case, there are strong cultural differences between me and intended reader. IMO pilots letters to friends and families may be the most honest source - but these rarely deal with operational details.

I think Trupo makes a very important point here.

 

Most avaitior accounts tell more about the both the autor as well as about the target audience than they tell you hard facts about aircraft. And the latter is a particularly difficult one to grasp, as cultural differences might make the reader not get the message between the lines.

 

Also the people in question probably though in a way less pedantic way about their rides and what they did with them, hence certain precision in details is simply not required for their story.

Someone with a lesser ride but better tactics can rightfully say he feels having a cmpetitive aircraft over an inept oponent with a higher performing aircraft and vice versa. While wrong on the specs, it can still be the truth. Unless a "fight test quality" report is generated, everything is subject to discussion.

 

I think for our case here, It would be much more important to get exact plane configurations to make meaningful performance projections. If you have those, you can make rather exact performance projections. It's done everyday. You don't make a new aircraft without having a clear idea on how it will perform. Yes, it's rocket science, but certainly not magic.