S.E.5a Woes

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

it would be much easier to model the propeller.  This is where testing real airframes, regardless of the engine, can help us model them much better than we can now.

Another reason I'm so fond your your aircraft and the data you provide with it!

 

In the end, it comes down for having a model to sanity ckeck what we have. For this you don't need too complicate assumptions, especially when you know what plausible number look like. If you just take anectotal evidence, then the airspeed of just about any aircraft can vary ~30 mph, depending on how you interpret the text. But if you have a thimb rule that gives you an accuracy of <5%, then we're getting somewhere, as this would even be what the expected as performance differences of the aircraft back then.

[No.23_Triggers]

13 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The way the propellers are modeled in flight sims are not by simply inputting blade pitch and diameter.   You have to create a coefficient of power curve and an efficiency curve for thrust.  The power curve tells how much power is required to turn the propeller at a given angle of attack, which changes based upon rpm and airspeed and is given by the "advance ratio".  The efficiency curve is telling how much thrust is produced at a given angle of attack and airspeed (again, advance ratio).  

 

It is very difficult to model these things on WWI aircraft because we have no drag coefficients from testing.  If we knew the drag coefficients, it would be much easier to model the propeller.  This is where testing real airframes, regardless of the engine, can help us model them much better than we can now.

Very glad to have your expertise in the discussion, Chill! 

[VeltroRoF]

19 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The way the propellers are modeled in flight sims are not by simply inputting blade pitch and diameter.   You have to create a coefficient of power curve and an efficiency curve for thrust.  The power curve tells how much power is required to turn the propeller at a given angle of attack, which changes based upon rpm and airspeed and is given by the "advance ratio".  The efficiency curve is telling how much thrust is produced at a given angle of attack and airspeed (again, advance ratio).  

 

It is very difficult to model these things on WWI aircraft because we have no drag coefficients from testing.  If we knew the drag coefficients, it would be much easier to model the propeller.  This is where testing real airframes, regardless of the engine, can help us model them much better than we can now.

 

If you would have looked at my post a little bit more carefully, then you would have noticed that that is what I am doing.

[No.23_Starling]

All, just to let you know I’ve been corresponding with The Shuttleworth Collection around data from their actual surviving SE5a. The UK is under lockdown right now but when things restart we are going to do a deeper dive.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I don't think there is any doubt, or contention, that the Viper W4a engine doesn't produce it's rated rpm/horsepower (2000/200), let alone a maximum rpm, within the sim, a fact that is easily producable and verifiable by flying the aircraft.  This is obviously an error/bug, that even without any additional information, although the more actual information, from a real SE5a with a Viper W4a, the better, and it might be better to wait to see if the Shuttleworth Collection is happy to respond to our enquiries and what, if any, information they can provide. 

 

It should be resolved in the same way, and with the same level of urgency, that would be given to the 109, P-47 or Spitfire if they were shown to be factually incorrect.

[No.23_Triggers]

22 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

It should be resolved in the same way, and with the same level of urgency, that would be given to the 109, P-47 or Spitfire if they were shown to be factually incorrect.

But will it be, though? I'd have to guess no...

I think, in all honesty, they could create a new FM from the Shuttleworth data, create a physical model for the 150hp S.E.5, and give that the same FM we currently have! Compared to the other planes, the current S.E. feels to me like how I'd imagine the 150hp. Still capable of being very fast, but generally underpowered. 

[VeltroRoF]

@No56_Waggaz

What kind of data can you ask for?

Things like cruise/max speeds and RPM's at sea level, and then at 15000 feet. Or maybe also stuff that is hard to find, such as propeller pitch angle, if at all they are using an original propeller.
Can you also ask for similar data regards to the previous engine?

 

 

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

150hp

 

More like 180hp. Fly the SPAD VII in RoF to understand why.

[No.23_Triggers]

26 minutes ago, VeltroRoF said:

More like 180hp. Fly the SPAD VII in RoF to understand why.

 

I did....feels like a 150

[VeltroRoF]

12 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I did....feels like a 150

Really, no

 

Back in the days when I was still very inexperienced vs. one of the top notch pilots at that time.  Flying a 150HP.

 

 

[No.23_Triggers]

7 minutes ago, VeltroRoF said:

Really, no

 

Back in the days when I was still very inexperienced vs. one of the top notch pilots at that time.  Flying a 150HP.

Uhh....I don't see the point you're making with the video? 

In RoF, the SPAD 150 was reasonably fast in a straight line (not SPAD-Fast), was very fast in a dive, but struggled to get back its energy in a zoom, owing to the underpowered engine. The only difference I can see when comparing to the FC S.E.5a is that the FC S.E. can get up to pretty good speed in a straight line as well. 

[VeltroRoF]

2 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Uhh....I don't see the point you're making with the video? 

Yeah, I don't know either anymore.

 

I was just really surprised that you say the FC SE5a feels like flying a 150HP especially now I know that you know how the 150HP SPAD in RoF flies. The 150HP SPAD just always felt really sluggish to me (besides diving) and had absolutely zero zoom capability. I always thought of the 180HP and the SE5a very comparable machines in RoF and now also comparable in FC. So yeah, I just can't agree. I could agree with a 180HP, but just not with the comparison of a 150.

[No.23_Triggers]

6 minutes ago, VeltroRoF said:

Yeah, I don't know either anymore.

 

I was just really surprised that you say the FC SE5a feels like flying a 150HP especially now I know that you know how the 150HP SPAD in RoF flies. The 150HP SPAD just always felt really sluggish to me (besides diving) and had absolutely zero zoom capability. I always thought of the 180HP and the SE5a very comparable machines in RoF and now also comparable in FC. So yeah, I just can't agree. I could agree with a 180HP, but just not with the comparison of a 150.

 

Exactly how the S.E. feels to me. You get one 'good' zoom out of her then the E.A. just creeps closer and closer with every attempted zoom after that. A SPAD XIII can boss a low EA all day but the S.E just sinks down into its clutches. The 180hp SPAD VII in RoF was fantastic at BnZ - better than the XIII IMHO  

Edited April 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[VeltroRoF]

8 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

one 'good' zoom

Hmm, i might get two or three + a couple of 'not so good' zooms in general (but certainly not so much at altitude though, in that case you are right).

So shall we settle at ~165 HP then? ; )

[No.23_Triggers]

2 minutes ago, VeltroRoF said:

Hmm, i might get two or three + a couple of 'not so good' zooms in general (but certainly not so much at altitude though, in that case you are right).

So shall we settle at ~165 HP then? ; )

Sounds about right, ha

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

On 4/11/2020 at 4:46 PM, Chill31 said:

The way the propellers are modeled in flight sims are not by simply inputting blade pitch and diameter.   You have to create a coefficient of power curve and an efficiency curve for thrust.  The power curve tells how much power is required to turn the propeller at a given angle of attack, which changes based upon rpm and airspeed and is given by the "advance ratio".  The efficiency curve is telling how much thrust is produced at a given angle of attack and airspeed (again, advance ratio).  

 

It is very difficult to model these things on WWI aircraft because we have no drag coefficients from testing.  If we knew the drag coefficients, it would be much easier to model the propeller.  This is where testing real airframes, regardless of the engine, can help us model them much better than we can now.

So, basically this means if someone wants to properly simulate those crates a team of testers would need to be formed and they would then need to travel to all those places where there are flying examples of those crates like the Vintage Aviator in New Zealand etc., gather data there and then feed it to AnPetrovich which is unrealistic by any means. Question is if the devs ever contacted such places during development at all? 

[No.23_Triggers]

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

So, basically this means if someone wants to properly simulate those crates a team of testers would need to be formed and they would then need to travel to all those places where there are flying examples of those crates like the Vintage Aviator in New Zealand etc., gather data there and then feed it to AnPetrovich which is unrealistic by any means. Question is if the devs ever contacted such places during development at all? 

Well, in the case of the S.E.5a at least, both Waggaz and I are UK-Based and should be able to call upon Shuttleworth. Wagz has already contacted them via email and has been assured any queries about S.E.5a should be answered. Shuttleworth operate the last flightworthy original S.E, and it is powered by an original Viper too - in other words, their data will be a goldmine for this discussion. At the moment due to covid the crew aren't allowed on-site, but we're expecting to hear back from them once the lockdown is lifted,  which is great news. They should be able to provide some much-needed hard data on the S.E. and the Viper engine. 

They also have a D.Va, Camel and Bristol on-site. Not sure if they have original engines or not...

[J5_Adam]

I doubt if the DVa would have a DIIIaü which it should have for 1918

 

edit:

 

it’s a TVAL DVa at Shuttleowrth so it probably has the 175/180hp DIIIa made by TVAL

Edited April 15, 2020 by Adam

[No.23_Triggers]

19 minutes ago, Adam said:

I doubt if the DVa would have a DIIIaü which it should have for 1918

 

edit:

 

it’s a TVAL DVa at Shuttleowrth so it probably has the 175/180hp DIIIa made by TVAL

Well, then it's the right engine for current in-game Alb testing...the correct engines thing is a whole other kettle of fish and, sadly, not one that's likely to be addressed...

[J5_Adam]

2 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Well, then it's the right engine for current in-game Alb testing...the correct engines thing is a whole other kettle of fish and, sadly, not one that's likely to be addressed...

 

True. So it's the wrong engine. Oh well.

[No.23_Triggers]

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

True. So it's the wrong engine. Oh well.

Yep - pretty much. Funnier still, Halb has a D.IIIaü. SPAD is also 200hp 1917-spec, and D7 is early spec, both wrongly so...

Edited April 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Knarley-Bob]

Question:

If they get the SE5a the power it needs, aren't the wings going to fold that much sooner?

[J5_Adam]

59 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Yep - pretty much. Funnier still, Halb has a D.IIIaü. SPAD is also 200hp 1917-spec, and D7 is early spec, both wrongly so...

 

Pretty funny really especially for a sim that in 2009 was meant to be only 1918.

[=RS=Stix_09]

There was similar discussions in ROF around the SE5a, as a lot of ppl did not fly it well. If u get into a turn fight with a D.V11F the odds are against you if the pilot knows how to fly, because as it was  in ROF this fighter in FC is the best all rounder (Its almost as fast as the SE5a , but maneuvers and climbs far better. Yes every plane has its strengths and weaknesses (any experienced virtual pilot knows this), and knows how to use that. I would not take on a D.V11F on equal or less energy, by choice. (ROF or FC), neither would I try and turn fight a DR.1 Fom memory some servers did not use the D.V11F  because it was too good. Many of the central planes out maneuver the se5a, and some also out climb it,but used correctly its a hard target.

 

PPL also forget that in ww1, you were not flying solo missions the majority of the time , you were part of a squad. So its silly to make direct ww1/ww2 comparisons to any of these games, the tactics and conditions we as virtual pilots fly are rarely anything similar. (in ww2 in they were flying  thousands of airmen a day). They also tend to suit turn fighters. Bnz requires more skill  in ww1 planes, because of the lower energy involved, and lower firepower.

 

Just like a fw190 speed (and good visibility for a ww1 plane) is the main asset ofthe SE5a.

 

I have not flown the SE5a in FC much yet , but so far I like what I see, but I need more time , as Ive only just purchased FC , (I do own ROF) and its been a while since I flew WW1 planes having mainly migrated to DCS and IL2 GB (WW2 planes these days). So I'm not saying ppl are wrong about the FM in FC , just that I reserve judgement now.

 

This was a video produced by I Fly Central back in the day , when ppl also complained about the SE5a in ROF (for reference, not sure yet how this applies in FC).

 

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[HagarTheHorrible]

20 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

There was similar discussions in ROF around the SE5a, as a lot of ppl did not fly it well. If u get into a turn fight with a D.V11F the odds are against you if the pilot knows how to fly, because as it was  in ROF this fighter in FC is the best alrounder (Its almost as fast as the SE5a , but maneuvers and climbs better. Yes every plane has its strengths and weaknesses (any experienced virtual pilot knows this), and knows how to use that. I would not take on a D.V11F on equal or less energy, by choice. (ROF or FC), neither would I try and turn fight a DR.1 Fom memory some servers did not use the D.V11F  because it was too good.

 

I have not flown the SE5a in FC much yet , but so far I like what I see, but I need more time , as Ive only just purchased FC , (I do own ROF) and its been a while since I flew WW1 planes having mainly migrated to DCS and IL2 GB (WW2 planes these days). So I'm not saying ppl are wrong about the FM in FC , just that I reserve judgement now.

 

This was a video produced by I Fly Central back in the day , when ppl also complained about the SE5a in ROF (for reference, not sure yet how this applies in FC).

 

 

The discussion isn’t really about the FM, although the FM is affected.  It is principally about the fact that the engine doesn’t produce it’s rated power and all that flows from that.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

There was similar discussions in ROF around the SE5a, as a lot of ppl did not fly it well.

As Hagar says - that's not really the issue here - it's more a case of "Is the S.E.5a performing to a historically comparable standard?"  - and after some discussion some of us think there's a problem with the engine and / or the airscrew, for which there seem to be historical inconsistencies based on the available literature. The S.E. is very slow to reach its 'full revs', and to my knowledge nobody's actually been able to achieve its actual full revs (historically) of 2000 RPM in level flight. Another curiosity is in dive-tests I've managed to get up to 2300 RPM without damaging the engine - AFAIK the Viper couldn't exceed 2100.  The very slow RPM gain also leads to the S.E. not being able to 'zoom' nearly as well as, say, the RoF equivalent - meaning that You have a BnZ aircraft that after the first couple attacks can B, but can no longer Z...

There are also indications from pilot memoirs that the S.E. could actually match Albatroses and Pfalzes in a turning match. But, we've generally agreed in the discussion that pilot accounts can't be taken as gospel. 

 

By any means, Wagz and I have prepared a set of questions to try and get some hard data, which we've forwarded to the Shuttleworth Collection, who operate a genuine 1918-built S.E.5a with an original Viper engine - the same type we have in-game - which we are hoping and expecting to receive once the UK is released from Covid lockdown. The data should be absolutely invaluable to revealing how our S.E. performs VS the real deal. 

 

Here's an interesting little anecdote I found on the Aerodrome Forums :

"There is anecdotal evidence from both British and German sources that the 'maximum permissible speed' for WWI engines could be extended far beyond the official limit above of a few minutes (I have an anecdote of a 100 hp Gnome mono with a damaged propellor being run at 1500 rpm for half an hour, and there is the letter from von R. relating to the extended use of 'over-gas' at low altitude with the BMW IIIa. I have come across memoir references to Allied pilots over-revving their engines for extended periods when trying to escape from or to catch up with a HA, and notes from COs warning pilots against this practice)".

Edited April 17, 2020 by US93_Larner

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

About over revving I heard or read that modern times pilot flying I think Sopwitch Triplane or else were need to held back the throttle a bit  to not over speed the engine in level flight.

[US213_Talbot]

2 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

There was similar discussions in ROF around the SE5a...

 

 

[emely]

We have one more point for disputes ?

[US213_Talbot]

Now that's funny

[=RS=Stix_09]

Ok So far I have not had problems myself against Ai in the Albatross with BnZ tactics, I'll need more testing with dif opponents myself  and AI is dif to a virtual pilot. So engine/ prop issues will be not good if incorrect , because it should have good energy retention for a ww1 plane. (which seems surprising for a plane that looks like a flying brick with wings, ?

I do know the SE5a turns much better with speed, and you need to keep energy high to fly well.

 

I have been able to get engine to just over 1900rpm in level flight with correct mixture settings.

I also do know there were several variants of the Wolseley Viper engine (a derivative from the Hispano Suiza HS-8 liquid-cooled V-8 engine) , not just one.

Acording to wiki (not sure about what is dif on these)

Wolseley W.4A Python I

Wolseley W.4A Python II

Wolseley W.4A Viper

Wolseley W.4B Adder I

Wolseley W.4B Adder II

Wolseley W.4B Adder III

Wolseley W.4A Python

 

(from wiki, accuracy ???)

Specifications (W.4A Viper)

Performance

• Power output: 200 hp at 2,000 rpm (takeoff power)
• Compression ratio: 5.3:1

 

I suspect the problem will be with  the prop data il-2 GB devs are using, rather than engine. I seem to remember that has been and issue with ww2 aircraft in the sim and come under question in community. Can't remember rpm from ROF off hand

Edited April 18, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[=RS=Stix_09]

with a bit of google I found this info on dif versions of engines (Hispano Suiza/Wolseley Viper)

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

 

And in game specs state it is  200HP variant (but prop is the thing that will change rpm....)

No experience with a real plane but I do have a fair amount with RC planes, and prop setup  is critical to get performance you want.

 

 

 

I know James McCudden was a mechanic before he became a pilot and he customised his plane.

 

McCudden scored 32 victories in this S.E.5a. B4891, which he extensively modified. His changes included installing a Sopwith Camel control column, reducing the wing dihedral, shortening the exhaust pipes and adding a prop spinner, taken from an LVG he downed. (Alex Revell)

 

https://www.historynet.com/james-mccudden-perfect-soldier.htm

(showing the 4 blade installed with added prop spinner)

Edited April 18, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
picture uploaded

[US103_Baer]

17 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

As Hagar says - that's not really the issue here - it's more a case of "Is the S.E.5a performing to a historically comparable standard?"  - and after some discussion some of us think there's a problem with the engine and / or the airscrew, for which there seem to be historical inconsistencies based on the available literature. The S.E. is very slow to reach its 'full revs', and to my knowledge nobody's actually been able to achieve its actual full revs (historically) of 2000 RPM in level flight. Another curiosity is in dive-tests I've managed to get up to 2300 RPM without damaging the engine - AFAIK the Viper couldn't exceed 2100.  The very slow RPM gain also leads to the S.E. not being able to 'zoom' nearly as well as, say, the RoF equivalent - meaning that You have a BnZ aircraft that after the first couple attacks can B, but can no longer Z...

........................

 

Prop Pitch:

Think you guys are on the right track with this.

 

1. Engine won't get near max revs in level flight

2. In game the SE5a does eventually get up to a historically believable 223kph (138.5mph) in level flight at SL

3. Very poor acceleration in dive, terrible climb performance, won't 'zoom'.

4. Engine will rev up to 2400rpm in shallow dive without damage. That's in-line with the 'fixed' high-comp Hispano Type 35 series HS8Bc - 8BEc, and exactly what i'd expect from the Viper with its modified crank, high compression direct drive.

 

Looking at all that the first thing that enters your mind is...prop pitch

 

 

 

(PS. Wont corrupt the thread with SPAD comparisons. That plane simply has a 200hp engine.)

Edited April 18, 2020 by US103_Baer

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Ok So far I have not had problems myself against Ai in the Albatross with BnZ tactics, I'll need more testing with dif opponents myself  and AI is dif to a virtual pilot. So engine/ prop issues will be not good if incorrect , because it should have good energy retention for a ww1 plane. (which seems surprising for a plane that looks like a flying brick with wings, ?

I do know the SE5a turns much better with speed, and you need to keep energy high to fly well.

 

I have been able to get engine to just over 1900rpm in level flight with correct mixture settings.

I also do know there were several variants of the Wolseley Viper engine (a derivative from the Hispano Suiza HS-8 liquid-cooled V-8 engine) , not just one.

Acording to wiki (not sure about what is dif on these)

Wolseley W.4A Python I

Wolseley W.4A Python II

Wolseley W.4A Viper

Wolseley W.4B Adder I

Wolseley W.4B Adder II

Wolseley W.4B Adder III

Wolseley W.4A Python

 

(from wiki, accuracy ???)

Specifications (W.4A Viper)

Performance

• Power output: 200 hp at 2,000 rpm (takeoff power)
• Compression ratio: 5.3:1

 

I suspect the problem will be with  the prop data il-2 GB devs are using, rather than engine. I seem to remember that has been and issue with ww2 aircraft in the sim and come under question in community. Can't remember rpm from ROF off hand

 

I know this thread is seven pages long and it would therefore take some time to read it all, but if you do you will appreciate that we have already come to a similar conclusion to yourself thanks to the efforts of a couple of the guys, not that we don’t appreciate your input.  The HP in the SE5a, in FC, is very much linked to speed, with it’s maximum achievable (in game) rpm only being attainable  (1920) above speeds of 125 mph (if I remember correctly, you need to be doing about 145 mph for the engine to hit 2000 rpm, but maybe that’s just the way they rated  engines at Wolseley, attached it to a test sledge, fired it up and then chucked it out of a top story window  of the factory).  For much of the SE5a’s flight regime you will discover that the engine produces well below it’s rated rpm.  In contrast, you will find that the three German aircraft, equipped with a 180hp D.IIIa engine, can produce more rpm’s (1500 - 1550), thus power, than rated (1400 - 1450 depending on who you believe) and they, proportionately lose far fewer rpm’s when they slow down, and start turning. I think that we are probably in a situation where, for much of the SE5a’s flight regime, it is operating with a far less powerful engine output (airscrew related) than it’s adversaries.  Wag’s56 and Larner have,  very kindly, taken the time to  write to the Shuttleworth collection, who have an original SE with Viper W4a engine, we wait to see what, if anything, they can, or are willing, to divulge.  As an aside, it is interesting to note, a video, from the Shuttleworth collection, talking about the Bristol Scout (posted by another forum member), claimed an increase in power of 30% on the Scout, for an increase of 100rpm’s.  If you, or anybody else, are in any doubt about what that might mean in performance terms then one only has to look at the performance difference between that of the D.VII and the “f”.  The SE won’t be any faster but it should be far more capable  than it currently is.

Edited April 18, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[No.23_Triggers]

6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

In contrast, you will find that the three German aircraft, equipped with a 180hp D.IIIa engine, can produce more rpm’s (1500 - 1550), thus power, than rated (1400 - 1450 depending on who you believe) and they, proportionately lose far fewer rpm’s when they slow down, and start turning. 

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent, IIRC there was something about the German rating system during WW1 that would result in some of their aircraft being rated at a lower power than they could actually produce - but I'd definitely want to research that more before stating it as a fact...

Edited April 18, 2020 by US93_Larner

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent, IIRC there was something about the German rating system during WW1 that would result in some of their aircraft being rated at a lower power than they could actually produce - but I'd definitely want to research that more before stating it as a fact...

I don’t know about the rpm value, but I think the 180 BHP is the adjusted figure, to align with British (?) rating of power.

[Chill31]

On 4/9/2020 at 4:51 AM, VeltroRoF said:

@ZachariasX

In my question on this forum I intentionally exaggerated the slip a bit, to show my point that the "aircraft speed" has to be slower than the "speed calculated from pitch * slip" . Because what I am looking for is if the "geometric pitch" is indicative for the speed of the aircraft. The reply that I got was to look at the aircraft, engine and propeller as a whole.

 

Eventually the end-calculation does not take slip into account. It is merely a proof that the propeller can still perform under the specified conditions:

CDa < CDab

Where:

CDa = Drag coefficient aircraft

CDab = the back calculated  drag coefficient according to the last formula in the topic (CD = ..)

 

The calculation that I made based on the formulas from the replies that I got shows that the propeller can still perform:

 

So: "Everything I know about our dear SE5a so far just statess one thing to me: wrong propeller selection."

= not true (based on the calcuation that I made).

 

Best regards,

Veltro

 

 

The propeller is cambered, that is why it is able to reach its max speed in terms of geometric pitch.  Zero thrust actually occurs at about -3 degrees angle of attack for most WWI propellers.  Therefore, at zero AOA (and the geometric pitch) thrust is produced.

[No.23_Triggers]

Interesting anecdote from Lt. Frank Selous’ test of the S.E.5 (Not SE5a):

 

”The SE5 has a much greater range of speed than the SPAD (VII) and will fly at 45mph”.

 

I find that interesting as, from what I’ve determined, 45mph is about the point where the S.E. loses directional stability. 

[nickj123]

Looking at the wing loadings for the real aircraft, the SE5 should have slightly better sustained turn performance than the F2B, and considerably better than the Albatros and Pfalz. That's clearly not the case, as it bleeds speed in the turn like it's towing a parachute.

 

However, I was surprised at how quickly the SE5 accelerates on takeoff compared to other aircraft, so I'm not sure it's just a case of engine power or prop pitch?

[HagarTheHorrible]

7 minutes ago, nickj123 said:

 like it's towing a parachute.

 

 

I wish !   I could certainly make good use of it from time to time

[No.23_Triggers]

I propose the S.E. gets given this FM.