S.E.5a Woes

[emely]

25 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

It was; in WW2 German night fighters used elevated guns.

Such decisions are enough in the First World War.  Even in our game there is this on a dolphin and a bristol.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Well...

The only actual claims of using Lewis gun tilted upwards in combat i know of come from Albert Ball in mid 1916 (before S.E.5 was operational). He claimed to have downed many German two-seaters by sneaking under them and firing Lewis upwards into crew/engine comparment. It was not dogfight, more like slow reverse bounce. He claimed 10 Rolands in August alone. I have no idea how verified his claims are - him being lone wolf and his victories being claimed behind the lines, you have to either believe him or not.

(One thing I don't understand is why was he supposed to let go of control column and use the guns trigger to fire it. When it's locked upwards, pilot can grab the controls and fire it via trigger on the column, right? It's his eyes that must be up).

The choice of Lewis as secondary gun for S.E was discussed a lot. The reasons were: synchroniser was new and not trusted by RFC (Britons chose to replace synchronised Vickers with Lewis on their Nieuport 17s for the same reason), synchronising two guns is much harder than just one (two places prop can't be in when guns are fired) and was only accomplished in Britain by spring 1917, Lewis was added pretty much as backup in case of Vickers jam and was normally not to be used and reloaded in combat, it was there so pilot was not defenceless when Vickers jammed. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[emely]

In my opinion, there is too much talk about this method of shooting.  It would be interesting to see how those who give this ability SE extraordinary effectiveness, prove their theoretical knowledge in practice and gain many victories with the help of a raised machine gun.  I don’t think there will be many applications for awards ;-)) Writing messages on forums is much easier.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

It was; in WW2 German night fighters used elevated guns.

 

Specialized tool for a specialized purpose.

 

If it were useful to yank and bank with it like it is in these games, it wouldn't be specialized, it would have been widespread in this use.  If you could use it in dogfights to achieve firing solutions where fixed guns couldn't, everybody would be using it.

 

I don't understand why people here are using examples of sneaking up underneath recons, or fitting on night fighters, when that is clearly not what is being discussed.  That is not the bone of contention, and nobody is arguing with you there.

 

The issue is using it in close-in dogfights, where both craft are aware of one another, and are maneuvering to achieve firing solutions.  The way in which the tilt up lewis is able to be used in game, does not reflect the reality of how it was actually used.

Edited April 1, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[HagarTheHorrible]

45 minutes ago, emely said:

In my opinion, there is too much talk about this method of shooting.  It would be interesting to see how those who give this ability SE extraordinary effectiveness, prove their theoretical knowledge in practice and gain many victories with the help of a raised machine gun.  I don’t think there will be many applications for awards ;-)) Writing messages on forums is much easier.

 

Ask Zatch, he seems to like using the up tilting Lewis, and he is very successful in the SE.

[J5_Gamecock]

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The only actual claims of using Lewis gun tilted upwards in combat i know of come from Albert Ball in mid 1916 (before S.E.5 was operational).

 I could be wrong but didn't Bishop claim this as well?  

 

  I'll have to re-read.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

A better question is why the hell can you put a Lewis gun on an Albatros?! 

 

There are photos out there of Lewis guns mounted to the top of an Albatros.

[HagarTheHorrible]

8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

There are photos out there of Lewis guns mounted to the top of an Albatros.

 

Presumably, the pilot felt the same need to try and attack 2 seaters from below.  I can't see it being because the pilot felt short changed in the other armament department, which maybe suggests the SE5a designers weren't all that crazy afterall.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

The issue is using it in close-in dogfights, where both craft are aware of one another, and are maneuvering to achieve firing solutions.  The way in which the tilt up lewis is able to be used in game, does not reflect the reality of how it was actually used.

How would people that barely could hit anything shooting forward (where they have a gunsight for aim) ever hit anything shooting up in the blue, hosing the other guy with the tracers? Works great on the screen though. We can do a ton of things easily in the sim that is rather far fetched in real life. Like positioning the gun with a click. If they had learned to shoot (trained hundreds of times like we can) with an added upward arrangement, they surely would have liked some aspects of it. It gives you the alpha the plane can‘t give you. In sim as in real life.

 

It would be debatable tough wheter or not in the sim there could be control restirictions for certain actions, e.g. pulling the gun down restricts control column movement. Same as changing mags. You move your stick, mag change woukd be interrupted. Then jams could be added to the misfires. Clearing the gun also would restrict control movements. Things like that could well make funny guns less practical. We have such limitations now like max trim wheel rotation and restriction due to g-force. Such could be applied to systems and weapons handling in FC planes.

[Cynic_Al]

7 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

“We have no knowledge of the gun being fired in any kind of interim position. The engineer I talked to about this thought that it wouldn't be physically possible to hold the gun one-handed in position and certainly not when being fired (due to the effect of the recoil).”

 

It should be remembered that the Foster mount includes a return spring mechanism, which had it been tensioned correctly could have made the lowered/elevated gun effectively weightless for the purposes of supporting it by hand, at least in the absence of g forces.

Regarding the suggested recoil issue, like all forces it acts in a straight line along the barrel, tangental to the curve of the Foster mount's rail.  To me this suggests that whenever the recoil acted, it could jam the slide mount momentarily against the curve of its rail, thereby cancelling the expected effect of pushing the gun backwards.

 

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There are photos out there of Lewis guns mounted to the top of an Albatros.

 

Yep. But how many Albs were there that had Lewis guns fitted? One? Two? Just seems like a weird choice for a mod, is all. 

[J5_Gamecock]

29 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 

Yep. But how many Albs were there that had Lewis guns fitted? One? Two? Just seems like a weird choice for a mod, is all. 

  Agreed. Same with the Becker. It was tested on a few different aircraft, never found to be of much use and didn't get used in combat from what I read of it. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

29 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

  Agreed. Same with the Becker. It was tested on a few different aircraft, never found to be of much use and didn't get used in combat from what I read of it. 

Actually, from von Hoepner wrote... when Luftstreitkräfte was created by merge of existing branches, the Becker (developed for Fliegtruppen) had to be passed to artillery R&D. Who promptly shelved it.

[Narticles]

Interesting thread. Thought I'd take the S.E. up and do some experimenting. 

S.E.5a experiences tonight: 

1. Held its own, fairly uncomfortably, against an Alb above cloud height. Was aggressively BnZ'ing, as the S.E. seems to just bleed RPM when you try the slower, more methodical approach and you end up a sitting duck. 

2. A D7F caught me in a, roughly, 80 degree dive. My engine had been damaged but was still running fairly strong (the 'clanking' noise hadn't started yet). I tried to break but had to do so slowly due to being too fast to break hard (would lose wings). D7F pulled hard and easily got inside my turn despite being at same speed and then insta-killed me with a single bullet. There is something very, very wrong there. D7Fs shouldn't come close to catching S.E's in a dive, even when they have damaged engines. I wish I'd been track recording. 

 

3. Just before that, my wingman No.74_Jones couldn't get away from an ALBATROS when he attempted an extreme-angle escaping dive with the throttle wide open. He ended up getting killed. That's insane. He should have left that Alb in the dust in seconds. The Alb pilot later said in discussion that his plane was shaking violently while he was chasing. Either the S.E's dive acceleration is seriously lacking, or the German scouts are far better than they should be. 

4. Took an S.E. into a turn fight against a gang of albs, a D7F and a Dr.I to test out its turn. Speed bleeds insanely fast even when dropping the nose in a turn, whereas Albs did what Albs do best and just circled at full elevator deflection without losing any airspeed. If they ever were historically similar in a turning fight, they're miles apart in FC - but we knew that. Also found, much to my amusement, that I couldn't evade a Triplane that had lost one of its upper wings. 

5. Didn't seem to be able to get much more than 1600 RPM in level flight. At 8,000 feet while cruising the lines I felt very slow. Climbing also felt really sluggish. 

6. was barely gaining on a D7F at balloon height when we were both in level flight. Maybe 2-3 mph faster. It didn't feel like I was in an S.E at that point...

7. Used the tilted up Lewis during a dogfight and felt suitably ridiculous doing so. It definitely felt 'arcadey'. 

 

8. Guns were a little awkward to aim at times, but were generally fine. 

 

Feels like there's definitely something wrong with S.E's RPM gain and general engine performance. It feels like it takes a LONG time to regain lost energy. Any attempt at turning is hopeless, and I think any FC plane could beat it comfortably in a turn fight. Not like what you read about at all - but I see that topic's already been covered here.

 

To clarify - I love flying the S.E.5a, and I have had good success flying it both with wingmen and solo - but it really did feel underpowered. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by No.74_Mannock

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

It should be remembered that the Foster mount includes a return spring mechanism, which had it been tensioned correctly could have made the lowered/elevated gun effectively weightless for the purposes of supporting it by hand, at least in the absence of g forces.

Regarding the suggested recoil issue, like all forces it acts in a straight line along the barrel, tangental to the curve of the Foster mount's rail.  To me this suggests that whenever the recoil acted, it could jam the slide mount momentarily against the curve of its rail, thereby cancelling the expected effect of pushing the gun backwards.

 

 

 

 

The standard spring was useless to that. Many pilots had their heads almost cracked open when the Lewis got lose by accident, including Billy Bishop and Cecil Lewis. They could use the bungee cord, but it wasn't standard, even in the 56th. Just some pilots had them. Also the bungee cord did not prevent the gun to be loose on the rail. It is not like we have here, when you have a rock solid position as if it was fixed. I don't recall who, but one of them had the gun lose on the rail and it almost ripped the plane apart. He had to return to base with it jammed on the bent rail, on his face. That's why the Shuttleworth Foudation has it fixed on the horizontal position, to care for the safety of the pilots.

 

It was also on an odd position to reach with you arm, and besides the 80+ degrees angle, when the gun was rested on the back of the rail, they would have to extend the arm to keep the gun in place while resisting to 200+ kilometers per hour winds (the drum acted like a frisbee and bent some wrists out there), turbulence, altitude sickness and whatnot. 

 

So it wasn't a remote controlled gun that we have here. It was a pain in the butt according to most pilots, McCudden included. In general, it was used as a backup gun, and many of them did not care to reload the drum, since it was a cumbersome, dangerous proposition. At altitude, they did not have strength to bring it back to the horizontal position. There is an account of a pilot who had to descend with the gun on his face until an altitude low enough so he could have his strength regained to bring the gun back in place.

 

Hence why I think it was Bishop who had his Nieuport trimmed to fly horizontally without hands, so that he could have a better grip and aim with the gun using both hands to fire. It was not easy, it was just a contraption that worked on the Nieuports, since they had to if I'm not mistaken stand up on the plane to reload the drum, so the foster mount made sense then. On the SE5a, Cecil Lewis considered it a bureaucrat decision from some deskman that never had flew a plane. He obviously did not know it was partially made due to Ball's opinion. McCudden did not like it either. I think he tried once to never try it again.

 

So, from my gatherings and e-mails with Alex Revell and the Shuttleworth Foundation, it would make sense to fix the reloading angle to 80 degrees or so (the right one) and allow the gun to fire just on that position, since we don't seem to have accounts mentioning the gun half way the rail, especially on turnfights (never saw it, even on High in the Empty Blue). Even if you find one somewhere lost in the annals of history, it becomes just not reasonable to create a mod on top of a single quote, especially since we know that the vast majority of pilots did not even care to fire it at the 80 degrees angle, not even using the Lewis gun altogether or not caring to reload it. Then you might have almost the entirety of cases where it was fired upwards at the 80 degrees angle, besides the 100% cases when it was brought back down to reload.

 

The same with the Albatros. People found what? A Photo of a Lewis on an Albatros? There was an D7 out there with a Lewis tilted, but it was fixed outside the frame and it could not be reloaded if I'm not mistaken. These mods were created to bring revenue to the studio, not to make sense.

 

Then I'm not very fond of these things, since you are turnfighting and people bring it back and forward as if it was a drone gun remotely controlled. It also cut the corners in turnfights very effectively (I tested once in SP and shot down a plane in the first try). Ideally it should have to be brought down to clear misfires as well, and I would be affected if they bring back the N17, so it is not like I'm hating on the SE5a.

 

I just experienced it once here, but it was historically used. The guy was below me and pulled it down to fire upwards at me in a somewhat straight line. But when you look back in a turnfight and people pull it down, the felling is sort of WTF? That's what prompted me to start researching it in the first place.

 

Even if some crazy dude was able to pull that up during the war (it was certainly not Ball or Bishop), no one lived to tell the tale and it would be weird to adopt it as well. 

 

I might be wrong, but the thing is, I never found a quote mentioning this type of use, so I would not push for such a mod.

Edited April 1, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[Troutlaw]

How about fixing the fact that there are invisible planes in their flying simulator before moving on to the angle and operation of the Lewis gun.

[SeaW0lf]

4 minutes ago, No.74_Jones said:

How about fixing the fact that there are invisible planes in their flying simulator before moving on to the angle and operation of the Lewis gun.

 

Could we have both? If we think like you, we should be visiting every thread with bug reports and suggestions and say that it is not important because we have invisible planes. Plus, the invisible plane bug is around since Il-2 inception I think. The first post is from 2015, mentioning cases since the release. Don't expect it to be fixed so soon.

Edited April 1, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J2_Trupobaw]

10 minutes ago, No.74_Mannock said:

I There is something very, very wrong there. D7Fs shouldn't come close to catching S.E's in a dive, even when they have damaged engines

Source for that? They definetly work differently from RoF, but I'm not sure it makes that "wrong". S.E.5 was generally outclassed by D.VII.
 

Quote

3. Just before that, my wingman No.74_Jones couldn't get away from an ALBATROS when he attempted an extreme-angle escaping dive with the throttle wide open. He ended up getting killed. That's insane. He should have left that Alb in the dust in seconds. The Alb pilot later said in discussion that his plane was shaking violently while he was chasing. Either the S.E's dive acceleration is seriously lacking, or the German scouts are far better than they should be. 

The gunnery is much more accurate, making all straight line escapes very risky. The flight physics are different too and expecting a rapid dive, or zoom, or climb, to get you out of danger zone like it did in RoF is wishful thinking in FC. This is true for all planes.
 

Quote

6. was barely gaining on a D7F at balloon height when we were both in level flight. Maybe 2-3 mph faster. It didn't feel like I was in an S.E at that point...

D.VIIF deploys full altitude throttle at 1500m in FC (was 2000m in RoF, I think the historical value was 3000m). 

 

[emely]

37 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Hence why I think it was Bishop who had his Nieuport trimmed to fly horizontally without hands, so that he could have a better grip and aim with the gun using both hands to fire. It was not easy, it was just a contraption that worked on the Nieuports, since they had to if I'm not mistaken stand up on the plane to reload the drum, so the foster mount made sense then. 

It is interesting to know what Bishop himself thought about this, and not you.  All that you wrote is your personal opinion without direct evidence.  It is so and it will be only so.  And why 80 °?  Do you really like this set of numbers? ?

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

  Agreed. Same with the Becker. It was tested on a few different aircraft, never found to be of much use and didn't get used in combat from what I read of it. 

And how many trophy Aldis, or French motors, were? ?

[SeaW0lf]

29 minutes ago, emely said:

And why 80 °?  Do you really like this set of numbers?

 

I said "80 degrees or so / 80+ degrees". What I'm saying is that it was a steep angle. I researched several photos and calculated the angle of the plane. The photo you posted above is not what you think. If you bring the plane around, the gun will look steeper than it looks now. Hell, they should call Vintage Aviator and ask the angle of the foster mount they produce there (obviously asking first if the mount follows historic standards).

Edited April 2, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[emely]

 I understand everything, again I joked a little, you again did not understand.  The story goes in a circle ?

 

I do not think that those who operate retro aircraft have at least once tried to reload a machine gun in flight.  And perhaps this system is simply not a priority for them, even if it is serviceable and contains all the necessary elements.  I also know these guys in my own country.  The issues of the combat use of their airplanes is the last thing that worries them.  The weapons that are installed on such aircraft (of those that I saw) are not real weapons.  This can be called mass-dimensional layouts.

 

It’s stupid to ask these guys about the maximum dive speed, or the minimum turn radius of their fighters, they don’t fight at them, but they very carefully lift them into the air for show to aviation enthusiasts.  The only thing that can be useful is information about the take-off speed of the engine, this is the only parameter that may very well be maximum for them, I hope they tell Larner about this.  However, this is accurate provided that the original version of the engine and propeller matches.  The question remains with the fuel, but I do not think that it will give too much.  And here's another thing: Depending on the air temperature, the take-off speed on the propellers with a constant pitch can be noticeably different.  This must be remembered in advance.

[Troutlaw]

Well this thread was about the flight model of the SE. Clearly it's beginning to head off the rails.

Edited April 2, 2020 by No.74_Jones

[No.23_Gaylion]

Remember this before we go guns a blazin:

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

 

Short but consistent description of the claim

 

Link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation

 

Game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

 

Yep. But how many Albs were there that had Lewis guns fitted? One? Two? Just seems like a weird choice for a mod, is all. 

 

5 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

  Agreed. Same with the Becker. It was tested on a few different aircraft, never found to be of much use and didn't get used in combat from what I read of it. 

 

Back when these mods were originally created for RoF, the criteria for them being created was photographic evidence that they existed. How much they were used in combat didn't figure into the decision.

[Narticles]

12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Source for that? They definetly work differently from RoF, but I'm not sure it makes that "wrong". S.E.5 was generally outclassed by D.VII.
 

The gunnery is much more accurate, making all straight line escapes very risky. The flight physics are different too and expecting a rapid dive, or zoom, or climb, to get you out of danger zone like it did in RoF is wishful thinking in FC. This is true for all planes.

D.VIIF deploys full altitude throttle at 1500m in FC (was 2000m in RoF, I think the historical value was 3000m). 

 

So, what? The only advantage the S.E. holds against a D7F is just negated now? Maybe the D7F could stay with an S.E. in a dive initially. But yesterday I dove hard from roughly 11,000 feet down to about 2,000 feet and the D7F just stayed exactly where it was behind me for the whole dive. That seems a bit dubious when every historical source, discussion, input etc cites the S.E. as a superior diver to generally everything except the Spad and perhaps the Pfalzes. 

It's also not true for all planes that a sharp dive won't get you out of trouble. When I bounced Drookasi (D7F) he immediately went into a dive and I wasn't gaining on him at all. I had my S.E's throttle at about 86% and was following him at something like 70 degrees. We were starting to get very fast in the dive when I fired at him and he immediately went into a hard breaking turn that I wouldn't dare try to copy in the S.E for certainty of losing my wings. He proceeded to do this maybe 2 or 3 more times before eventually he overcooked it and ripped his wings, but he was only getting further away from me until then. 

I must be diving the S.E. all wrong in FC. Because from my last couple experiences vs them, the D7F seems to be a better diver. 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by No.74_Mannock

[1PL-Lucas-1Esk]

D.VII is a comparable diver, capable of reaching about 300kph  (both versions). The SE5a is slightly faster, but not that fast to quickly evade from the bullets. Since German planes are generally slower, their veteran pilots usually have a good marksmanship.

[emely]

SE is still a bit faster in armament.  It all depends on the initial conditions and the distance between you and the enemy at the start of the dive.  If D7 has more energy, then it will be more difficult to leave.  In my poor experience, diving with a close six is very dangerous.  You must first confuse the pursuer at least a little to have a different course with him.  It is generally desirable 180 °, so that he would spend more time on a U-turn behind you.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

How are people getting 300kmh out of the dviif in a dive without breaking the engine?  What throttle % are you sitting at?

 

Seems to break just fine for me.  Once I start passing 1600rpm it's a matter of time even if I'm not past by that much.

[No.23_Triggers]

9 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

How are people getting 300kmh out of the dviif in a dive without breaking the engine?  What throttle % are you sitting at?

 

Seems to break just fine for me.  Once I start passing 1600rpm it's a matter of time even if I'm not past by that much.

SH! Nobody tell him! 

Conducting some dive tests at the moment - 1600 rpm seems to be a fairly hard limit for all German planes. Anything over and engine is kaput. 

 

1 hour ago, emely said:

It all depends on the initial conditions and the distance between you and the enemy at the start of the dive. 

This is my experience too. You have to 'trick' the D7 into a low energy state and dive before his energy is back. If you start diving and he's at same or higher energy than you then you're in trouble...

Edited April 2, 2020 by US93_Larner
formatting

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

From here -  https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/14261/lot/162/

[No.23_Triggers]

Interesting! I was testing the S.E. at 3000m today (about 9,800 ft). Max speed was 109 MPH and max RPM was in the range of 1,860 or so (hard to tell - no indicators between 1,800 and 1,900). Typically when I've flown S.E. the dial seems to be creeping around 1600-1700 while climbing or fighting, only getting to 2000+ in a dive. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by US93_Larner

[VeltroRoF]

Hi everyone,

replying to the original question:

 

I flew with the SE5a in Rise of Flight quite a bit. About two weeks ago I started flying the SE5a in FC.

 

To sum up my thoughts regards the SE5a in RoF and now in also in Flying Circus:

1. SE5a is NOT the fastest plane in the game. I always get a bit annoyed when people say this. You can ask yourself: In which category is it faster? Top speed @ 1000 meters or diving away as fast as possible, yes it is 'just a little bit faster'. But it looses in EVERY other category: accelleration, turning, speed at high altitude, stability and what else. The plane is slower at altitudes where it matters the most and beaten by the DVIIF. The DVII then again is 'just a bit slower' than the SE5a at both low altitude and high altitude. But the thing is: I care ten times more about how my craft performs at 3000 meters. And on top of that the acceleration is extremely bad when you cannot meet that absolute minimum of RPM. This is especially difficult when flying at high altitude.
2. As far as I can see the flight model is the same as in RoF so we go to 3.
3. I think that the way how the air changes going to altitude is different in FC. Flying the SE5a at 7500ft in FC feels like flying at 12500ft in RoF (A 5000ft difference!). As far as I'm concerned this is the cause of loosing more energy as well. I can also notice a clear 'delay' when using my joystick controls at this point.
4. I think that BnZ was easier in RoF at lower altitudes. I was able to pin down alb, DVII, and sometimes DVIIF and even DVIII). At higher altitude and when all energy advantage was gone it was always a loose-loose situation. At high altitude this is even worse now in FC but that doesn't matter so much, in RoF I was not able to win this anyway (a 1:10 disadvantage I would say). In FC, at lower altitude I no longer seem to be able to pin down the enemy, but this could be a matter of practice, so I don't know yet. Right now it seems to be easier for them to just turn around and (prop hang) and shoot at you. One bullet seems to be enough to do the job.
5. I disagree with the shooting. I think I can actually shoot better. This is probably because I feel I have better feedback whether or not I am actually hitting something. In RoF I was never sure if I hit something at distance.

 

Some additional notes about the FM:

 

a) I think the SE5a should be faster at higher altitudes (See point 1. and see. https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/se-5a-reproduction/flying-se5a: "The performance doesn’t seem to diminish with altitude either, it can maintain 120 mph right up to about 15,000 ft." Also note the mention in this article of the engine "the 180 Hispano Suiza". Thus not the 200???).

 

b) I also want to say that I think that some people are mistaken that you should be able to fly away easily from a DVII (or F) with a SE5a. In my opinion this has never been true in both RoF and FC. You need energy advantage to create distance 'fast' between your enemy and yourself. What they don't realize is that the DVII's have absolutely amazing acceleration at low speeds (90-140 km/h in 13 sec @ 3000m in the horizontal plane). This is the case in RoF and also in FC. I feel that some people just don't know how escape this and for this reason they just dive away as fast as they can. Maybe this was ok in RoF, but not in FC! In FC the DVII can follow you because it can dive much better now. Regards to the damage model in this perspective, DVII no longer loosing parts at high speed or blowing their engine and also wings of the SE5a super strong, I am actually disappointed in FC. I feel the planes are way too strong. There is no point anymore trying to shoot at the wings etc. It seems now you need to hit the engine or the pilot only. Shooting at the wings before diving away is no longer a good tactic.

 

c) Regards to the high acceleration mentioned in b. I have never understood why an aircraft (the SE5a) that is lighter and has higher engine power (than the DVIIF) actually has a lower acceleration.

 

The end-conclusion is that my opinion about the SE5a does not change whether it is in RoF or FC. I am disappointed in the SE5a in both RoF and FC because I think it should be faster at higher altitudes. And as far as I'm concerned this is the 'only' thing that should be changed regards to the flight model.

For the rest I think the devs could have a look at how the 'air' at higher altitudes really behave. I am not sure that creating a 'dead time' in the joystick controls is the way to go.

 

Best regards,

Veltro

(Most people know me as Veltro from RoF hence the name VeltroRoF).

 

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, VeltroRoF said:

There is no point anymore trying to shoot at the wings etc. It seems now you need to hit the engine or the pilot only.

 

That's why the Flying Circus damage model is so touted by everyone. It is light years ahead of ROF. Now we can get hits on the wings and fuselage and don't shake like Jerry Lee Lewis anymore and continue to fight, even to continue our patrols. Yesterday I got hit by and SE5a at the start of my patrol and flew it to the end, an hour later, still with bullet holes in my wings.

 

That's what we all read in the books. People coming with planes riddled with bullets and they still went on with their patrols. Some did not even notice that they were hit.

 

Give it some time. This is way closer to the real deal, although some people coming from ROF, especially those used to resort to quick shots to the wings, will take some time to adjust to a more realistic setting.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think we need to try and establish hard facts/numbers, I can’t see the Developers having consideration for anything else.

 

I think the first thing to say is how the engine of it’s main adversaries compares, using a basic baseline of 300m, Arras map,.  The Mercedes D.IIIa engine is rated at 180bhp at 1450rpm, I imagine this is the “nominal RPM”, or the best rpm without risking over stressing the engine.  The Albatros, Pflaz and D. VII use this engine and respectively make 1500, 1520 and 1555.  I assume this is MAX rpm and gives these aircraft a higher B.H.P although why the engine should perform differently in different aircraft is open to debate.  We might actually have the rather perverse situation of the three German aircraft performing with a more powerful (max rpm) engine than an SE that has an engine that is not reaching it’s rated power, much less it’s max power (see A.I.D engine acceptance form above to get an idea of how rpm’s and engine power are affected).  I think a good test of the SE engine rpm and therefore power, would be to get the SE “stuck” in the mud, so that it is possible to apply full throttle, without the influence of airflow, to muck up the figures, and observe what full rpm is.  I believe it should, if correct, be close to the figures shown in the “acceptance” form above.

 

What difference, being able to run the engine at “max rpm” (2100rpm/220BHP), just as, it appears to me, that it is possible to do with the D.IIIa engine, would make to overall performance, I don’t know.  What, I think, I can say is that for every 100rpm below 2000 the aircraft will be 175 m behind where it should be (when the prop is working at its most efficient (propeller pitch for Viper is 1750mm). Given that most shooting in WW1 seems to have been around the 100 meter mark, 175 m, or 2.9 m per sec, I would think, makes a huge difference.

The Viper engine, in game, is very dependant on aircraft speed, I think we need to establish, preferably from the Shuttleworth trust, under what conditions that engine can produce 2000rpm, or it’s max rpm (2100).

 

[ZachariasX]

Something is odd with the SE5a and I am trying to find out how the FM comes up withe the speeds and accelleration we are seeing. For this I made a chart with all the engine/prop combinations that I am familiar with. If you know other configurations, please let me know.

 

For this I compiled a small chart:

 

I suppose we have a W.4a Viper direct drive engine cranking a A.B.662 prop. This is what comes closest to the performance when using the speeds @US93_Larner just posted above. You stated TAS, right?

 

Correction, you used IAS, right?

 

Back at my rig, I get the following speeds ~131 mph (212 km/h) TAS at seal level @1900 rpm, ~107 mph IAS (~125 mph / 202.5 km/h

TAS) @1900 rpm, 3000 m.

 

So then what I said initially doesn't make sense. Here's my (rough) measurements:

 

 

This means, the airspeed would correspond to a prop pitch of (theoretically) of 1.86 m or 1.88 m respectively. This means we have a prop steeper than the A.B.662. Is there a prop with ~1.9 meters pitch?

Edited April 4, 2020 by ZachariasX

[HagarTheHorrible]

Ok, did an engine check;

 

Kuban map, spring, airfield next to the sea.   I moved my aircraft until it became stuck against an object (oil tank) and then ran the engine at 100% throttle.  Max RPM was a paltry 1620. 

 

If I don't get figures close to those on the engine acceptance form, that I posted above, is it something I'm doing wrong or should the engine not run at that speed when static ?

 

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Max RPM was a paltry 1620. 

This means that whatever we have as prop requires more power to crank it than what they actually put on back then.

 

So, that would be our Viper engine, assuming a flat torque output over rpm (torque = 147'000/(2*3.14 * 33.3) = ~700 nM). For practical purposes in our rpm range, that should be good enough as assumption. This means that in fact our engine is only giving 162 hp at 1620 rpm. What we have is a prop that exhibits a lot of torque even at modest rpm. At best flightspped, we get 1900 rpm, meaning 190 hp.

 

In order to make it harder to crank a prop, we can either make it steeper pitched or (in the game!) we can make the air "too sticky". Something with this propeller regarding lift/drag of the two airfoils on the prop. Looking at the flight speeds, it seems indeed that the prop is steeper. Due to getting the same prop pitch at altitude and near sea level (~1.9 m) i assume this being the pitch used.

 

So, if we have an engine calibrated for 200 hp @2000 rpm matched to a 1.75 meter pitch prop, just increasing pitch would decrease rpm that can be attained.

 

It would be interesting to know if we indeed got 2000 rpm by using an A.B.662 with 1.75 m pitch. It is of note that the crate would do 200 km/h best case then. But accelleration and climb should be markedly better, especially since we would get 200 hp output.

 

To me, there is something off between the balance of engine power increase and required power increse to make the prop crank faster, the prop wins too soon here. I mean, I have never seen in fixeded pitch prop aircraft that rpm would drop 20% when making a steep climb. On the contrary, you power up then and climb at high rpm to maintaing good airspeed. It's really odd.

[VeltroRoF]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

So, if we have an engine calibrated for 200 hp @2000 rpm matched to a 1.75 meter pitch prop, just increasing pitch would decrease rpm that can be attained.

 

I think you are turning around the reasoning during the war. The Viper allowed for better performance at altitude because of the high compression ratio. The engine has no gearing. As a consequence a prop runs almost twice as fast. So a propeller would be needed with a pitch of about 1.95? This immediately brings in the question of "Why did they choose a propeller that actually has a lower pitch?". To me the only logical answer is because the Viper ran at a higher RPM. Higher RPM + Lower pitch means better climb. The better performance of the engine to maintain high RPM maintains speed at high altitude. A slight loss of speed at lower altitudes may be the consequence as well.

 

But anyways, the more I look at this, the low RPM we see in-game makes less and less sense.

 

Sidenote: I also think you would need more proof of your numbers. I red somewhere there was an AB662C that had a pitch of 1800 but Wolseley printed the number 1750 on the blade.
Another thing, who knows is Wolseley printing "effective pitch" on their blades? I don't know what is standard in 1917 so maybe this is a stupid assumption I don't know. But I find it rather coincidental that 2100 RPM (which is the max from HagarTheHorrible's Acceptence Test) with a 1.75m pitch calculates almost exactly to 138 mph (which some people indicate as the max speed of the SE5a).

Edited April 5, 2020 by VeltroRoF
correction typo

[HagarTheHorrible]

It occurred to me that when players test aircraft speed, in game, it seems they always test with the throttle fully open, or at max rev’s.  By that method the aircraft performance figures (speed) are obtained from running the engine  beyond it”s “normal” stated power output.  When testing the Viper W4a I think we should also consider that it should be running at it’s max, rather than normal rpm, so that everything is being compared to the same standard.  I don’t know if the engine acceptance form above represents a “typical” engine (normal 2000/210BHP,     Max 2100/220BHP) or whether it just happens to be a. “Magic Monday edition” rather than a “Work-horse Wednesday” edition.

[SeaW0lf]

You should also test on the autumn map, which is, if I'm not mistaken, the International Standard Atmosphere. So the test you did during spring is not relevant, since in FC the speed varies according to the season (air density?).

 

ROF does not vary the speed across the seasons, and every season matches the autumn numbers in FC. So anything related to ROF and related to a standard number across different aircraft should be done on the autumn map, or then you recreate the ISA standard with the Mission Editor.

 

It would not make sense to test the planes on cruise speed, since we don't have wear and tear and we can run full throttle all the time. At least on the rotaries, it seems that they were tested during the war and after the war at full throttle as well. One example would be the Fokker D8 tested in the US in 1921, ran at 1390rpm on the Oberursel at sea level. Perhaps this is different with the in-line engines, but I think they did not care about blowing the engine up in the 1910s and 1920s [not worried to lose the pilot as well].