SPAD Dive Capability

[No.23_Triggers]

So I found an article the other day entitled "Defeat by Design" which examines the Albatros' nasty habit of losing its wings in dives. While reading through, I found a really interesting section where the Albatros is compared to the SPAD XIII, where both types' top speed in a dive are predicted using French Engineer Professor Y. Rocard's method of Flutter Analysis: 







Where this gets really interesting for me is when the article starts giving some numbers for predicted aircraft speeds: 

 

 

Unfortunately, a hard number is not given - rather a "ball park figure" ... but compare that figure to the Flying Circus' SPAD's capabilities! It is stated here that the SPAD's predicted crucial flutter speed is above 483 km/h!!  In Flying circus, the SPAD reaches crucial flutter speed at around 320 km/h ... drastically lower than the article would suggest! Now, it is mentioned that this does NOT deal in absolute accurate figures, but nonetheless there is a huge difference in speed between the top dive speed of the FC Spad and the top dive speed cited here, leading me to believe that perhaps the FC Spad is (dare I say it?) too slow in a dive!

I wonder if this should possibly be researched further? Maybe even passed on to the Devs, if some other sources are found to accompany this one? 

For those wishing to give the full article a read, it can be found here. It's really interesting stuff! http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31781#content_start

Edited May 9, 2020 by US93_Larner

[BMA_Hellbender]

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/media/documents/oexp-engineering/bi_plane_WingFlutter.pdf

 

 

[J5_Adam]

[No.23_Triggers]

Er, ok?

[BMA_Hellbender]

Honestly I'm confused as well.

 

I suppose that the lower wing is completely optional in the design.

[J5_Adam]

1 minute ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Honestly I'm confused as well.

 

I suppose that the lower wing is completely optional in the design.

The majority of  lift on biplanes is from the upper wing

[BMA_Hellbender]

Just now, Adam said:

The majority of  lift on biplanes is from the upper wing

 

Yes, I'm just wondering why the entire structure didn't fail from losing the lower wing. I mean, this wasn't an internally braced cantilever design, right?

 

It's funny because it reminds me of the Nieuport 11 in RoF, where you can creatively remove the lower wings for a small performance boost.

[J5_Adam]

1 minute ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Yes, I'm just wondering why the entire structure didn't fail from losing the lower wing. I mean, this wasn't an internally braced cantilever design, right?

 

It's funny because it reminds me of the Nieuport 11 in RoF, where you can creatively remove the lower wings for a small performance boost.

 

I can imagine that if the pilot was good and the weather wasn't too turbulent that day AND he wasn't being chased down and shot at by an enemy, that he gingerly flew it to a crash landing

[Garven]

You can rip all the wings completely off an Albatross and make a controlled descent in game, with the extra power in RoF you could maintain level flight  

Edited May 9, 2020 by US93_Furlow

[J5_Gamecock]

 I would guess that the fly wires remained intact, holding the wing and keeping it from flying of the inner struts.  still....

 

 Here is a photo of the aircraft after it he "landed" it. I find it interesting that the V strut is still attached and rigid.

[J5_Adam]

8 minutes ago, US93_Furlow said:

You can rip all the wings completely off an Albatross and make a controlled descent in game, with the extra power in RoF you could maintain level flight  

Yes, but it's very rare. I did it once. However, I've seen others reproduce it. Neoqb or 777 (I can't remember which) stood behind there modelling by posting a picture of an aircraft with a large chord and short span.... rolls eyes

2 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 I would guess that the fly wires remained intact, holding the wing and keeping it from flying of the inner struts.  still....

 

 Here is a photo of the aircraft after it he "landed" it. I find it interesting that the V strut is still attached and rigid.

 

Ya bracing

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 minutes ago, US93_Furlow said:

You can rip all the wings completely off an Albatross and make a controlled descent in game, with the extra power in RoF you could maintain level flight  

 

As this historically accurate documentary proves:

 

 

[J5_Gamecock]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Unfortunately, a hard number is not given - rather a "ball park figure" ... but compare that figure to the Flying Circus' SPAD's capabilities! It is stated here that the SPAD's predicted crucial flutter speed is above 483 km/h!!  In Flying circus, the SPAD reaches crucial flutter speed at around 320 km/h ... drastically lower than the article would suggest! Now, it is mentioned that this does NOT deal in absolute accurate figures, but nonetheless there is a huge difference in speed between the top dive speed of the FC Spad and the top dive speed cited here, leading me to believe that perhaps the FC Spad is (dare I say it?) too slow in a dive!

 

  Those are numbers used in a model. While his theory suggests that the crucial flutter speed wouldn't occur under 483 Km/h I have to wonder if anyone really ever got close to that speed in 1918. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

It's funny because it reminds me of the Nieuport 11 in RoF, where you can creatively remove the lower wings for a small performance boost.

 

I had the gear ripped off the Hanriot once and it was really fast!

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I suppose that the lower wing is completely optional in the design.

 

....and Anthony Fokker has a lightbulb go off in his head.....and the concept of the Fokker DVIII is born!

[No.23_Triggers]

9 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Those are numbers used in a model. While his theory suggests that the crucial flutter speed wouldn't occur under 483 Km/h I have to wonder if anyone really ever got close to that speed in 1918. 

Yep, and of course you have to remember that when considering the result, but unless Rocard's theory comes up with wildly inaccurate results then I think there's something telling between his predicted crucial flutter speed of over 483 km/h. They've mentioned the Albatros' potential crucial flutter speed with Rocard's prediction and an applied error margin of 15%, so lets go with the 483 km/h figure and apply the same margin of error for the SPAD: 

When increased by 15%, that places the SPAD's potential crucial speed at 555.5 km/h, or 345 mph. When decreased by 15%, that puts the SPAD at 410.5 km/h, or 255 mph. If we take the critical flutter speed to mean the moment where flutter causes a failure in the wing, then both figures make for an interesting comparison with the FC SPAD.  

I went back and looked at some of the data I'd collected on the FC SPAD's diving capabilities, for which I recorded the following: 

-Control surfaces flutter at approx. 320 km/h, and shear away at approx. 350 km/h.
-Complete wing failure occurs at approx. 360 km/h. 

Compared to Rocard's analysis, that's a pretty big difference. For comparison's sake, if we ignore the 'over' in over 483 km/h, and call it just 483 km/h, that's a difference of approx. 123 km/h. However, like you say, this is a pretty extreme speed, and it could be called into question if anyone ever came close to that. In short - we don't know. 

Looking then at a possibly more reasonable figure, the modified prediction with 15% subtracted as an 'error margin' (410.5 km/h), there's still a 50.5 km/h difference between the prediction and the in-game number.

Unfortunately there isn't any data that I've found yet that gives a figure for maximum diving speed of a SPAD XIII, but there are some anecdotal pilot accounts that are interesting when compared with the predicted figures. To paraphrase one, Charles J. Biddle, C.O. of the 13th Aero Squadron, mentioned in his memoir one occasion where one of his wingmen was surprised and attacked by Fokkers over the front. However, the Fokkers shot from too far out and only put a couple rounds through the wing of the SPAD. Naturally quite alarmed by this, the SPAD pilot proceeded to go into an extreme dive. Biddle described it something along the lines of "I have never seen a plane dive that fast, and I thought for sure he would lose his wings". A later inspection of the SPAD revealed that the wings had actually bent back "1 or 2 inches" in the dive, and that all the flying wires had become de-tensioned. 

There's obviously no statistical figure given for how fast the pilot in question dived his SPAD, but I contend that you'd have to be diving pretty damn fast for another experienced SPAD pilot to see you and expect your wings to tear off - never mind the fact that it warped the wings! 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I also find it interesting comparing the predicted 'Rocard' figures for the Albatros VS. the in-game FC Albatros. In 'Defeat by Design', the given figure for the Albatros' theorised crucial flutter speed is 190 km/h, with the article stating that a 15% increase to account for the margin of error would put that figure closer to 217 km/h, cited as being "probably easily attainable in a power dive". 

When dive-testing the Albatros in Flying Circus, I collected the following results: 

Control surfaces flutter at around 268 km/h, and control surfaces shear off at approx. 292 km/h. I actually recorded no failure speed in the Albatros, as I simply couldn't get it to go fast enough in a dive to break up without applying G-loading to the wings (mainly due to the engine conking out, IIRC)

Now, compared to Rocard's predicted results this is obviously a lot higher, with a difference between the base predicted figure and the FC figure (using the top recorded speed of 292 km/h) being 102 km/h, and the difference between the upper +15% modified prediction being 75 km/h. This is really interesting when comparing to the 'Rocard' figures for the SPAD vs the FC figures for the SPAD, and would suggest that, if Rocard's theory can be taken with any seriousness, one of the two aircraft can either dive faster than it could, or can't be dived fast enough. 

I've yet to test both aircraft post-new-DM, which I'm quite eager to do in order to compare again with Rocard's predictions. I'm guessing the results should be the same, as the new DM shouldn't have changed undamaged aircraft strength, but it's good to have an up-to-date figure anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Disclaimer:

What I'm not saying is "Oh my god, look at this number I found! Quick, change the FC SPAD!" but, unless Rocard's analysis just produces wildly random results, I definitely think there's something very interesting and worth exploring some more in there! What I want to do now is try to get my hands on some other sources to see if any data out there backs up the figures ascertained by Rocard's theory!

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

It sounds like the Dv failure speed is too high. Nobody here can refute the wealth of evidence from central pilots that the Dv was historically prone to losing the lower wings in a prolonged dive, though I’m sure there’d be still resistance to any suggestion of remodelling in-game.

[BMA_Hellbender]

16 minutes ago, Waggaz said:

It sounds like the Dv failure speed is too high. Nobody here can refute the wealth of evidence from central pilots that the Dv was historically prone to losing the lower wings in a prolonged dive, though I’m sure there’d be still resistance to any suggestion of remodelling in-game.

Well for a start we would need to have the D.V in-game.

[No.23_Starling]

I thought the A was also still prone to failures, but not as bad?

[BMA_Hellbender]

18 minutes ago, Waggaz said:

I thought the A was also still prone to failures, but not as bad?

 

From the study I posted:

 

 

 

The performance drop from D.V to D.Va was somewhat offset by the introduction of the overcompressed 200hp D.IIIaü field conversion.

 

For the most part the D.Va was a pretty rubbish machine by 1918 standards, even structurally speaking, though likely not as bad as the D.V.

 

 

 

 

An accurate Albatros D.V in-game would likely be slightly faster than our current D.Va with the same engine, more prone to shedding its lower wing and less maneuverable than the S.E.5a.

 

And an accurate Albatros D.Va would be worse in every way, with a slightly tougher lower wing and more powerful engine.

[J2_Bidu]

12 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

As this historically accurate documentary proves:

 

???  ???  ???  ??? 

 

P.S.: So "you can't add any more reactions today", hey?! ?

[No.23_Triggers]

I remember Albs being able to fly on 3 or 2 wings in RoF. They could dive a little bit as well - but not at 'losing your lower wings' speed. Although I seem to remember them being able to fly with lost upper wings. IIRC the Fokker and Pfalzes could fly like that as well. I never managed to fly an S.E. or SPAD with any missing wings. I don't remember the N11 or N17 being able to - but I never flew them an awful lot. In FC it seems like only the Dr.I can fly with missing wings.

I did some more dive testing in FC today for the SPAD - and I stand corrected. The wings will collapse at around 390 km/h - but by the time you're going that fast you will have lost all your control surfaces, which come off one-by-one in rapid fashion around 360- 370 km/h. 

 

That's closer to the 'Rocard' figure given when factoring in the -15% error margin of the top crucial speed, but is still 20 km/h slower. Compared to the unmodified predicted figure, it's a full 93 km/h slower (that's still quite a big difference) and when applying the +15% error margin it's not even close, with a whopping 165 km/h difference. 

 

The fastest I managed to dive an Albatros D.Va was 299 km/h. The plane simply couldn't get any faster than that - but it held together minus its ailerons. Compared with Rocard's prediction +15% error margin, that's a minimum 82 km/h advantage to the FC Albatros, with the critical speed unknown. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Adam]

Ya those Russians love the good ol Germans

[Garven]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

I remember Albs being able to fly on 3 or 2 wings in RoF. They could dive a little bit as well - but not at 'losing your lower wings' speed. Although I seem to remember them being able to fly with lost upper wings. IIRC the Fokker and Pfalzes could fly like that as well. I never managed to fly an S.E. or SPAD with any missing wings. I don't remember the N11 or N17 being able to - but I never flew them an awful lot. In FC it seems like only the Dr.I can fly with missing wings.

Once crash landed a Hanriot without wings.  Seen a Video of I Got Shot doing the same in a camel in RoF.

[DD_Arthur]

57 minutes ago, Adam said:

Ya those Russians love the good ol Germans

 

 What does this mean?

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US93_Furlow said:

Once crash landed a Hanriot without wings.  Seen a Video of I Got Shot doing the same in a camel in RoF.

 

Looks like I found some more of that documentary footage.

 

 

After that the (I)RFC won't let me fly Camels anymore.

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[US103_Hunter]

So this thread about SPAD performance immediately get thrown off subject and converted to an Albatross discussion by the Jasta boys. This is why entente can't have nice things...

Edited May 10, 2020 by US103_Hunter

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 minutes ago, US103_Hunter said:

So this thread about SPAD performance immediately get thrown off subject and converted to an Albatross discussion by the J_bois, this is why entente can't have nice things...

 

I apologise, I was merely replying to this:

 

18 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

So I found an article the other day entitled "Defeat by Design" which examines the Albatros' nasty habit of losing its wings in dives. While reading through, I found a really interesting section where the Albatros is compared to the SPAD XIII, where both types' top speed in a dive are predicted using French Engineer Professor Y. Rocard's method of Flutter Analysis: 

 

And well, for the rest I was reminiscing about flying wingless planes in RoF, which seems like it's the case again in FC (I'm yet to fly again since the update).

 

Honestly, interesting read. I'm also willing to believe that the SPAD's main wings didn't suffer from critical flutter at least until 400km/h+, compared to the Albatros D.V lower wing, which was known to fail due to excess vibration in a dive even at no more than 1G.

 

 

I also believe that the way the SPAD behaves now is accurate: control surfaces flutter much earlier than the main wing does, and once you lose those it's hard if not impossible to maintain 1G. Ideally we'd need to be able to perform some wind tunnel tests to see how long the main wing itself survives at very high speed.

[Garven]

3 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I also believe that the way the SPAD behaves now is accurate: control surfaces flutter much earlier than the main wing does, and once you lose those it's hard if not impossible to maintain 1G. Ideally we'd need to be able to perform some wind tunnel tests to see how long the main wing itself survives at very high speed.

Memorial flights web page mentions the Spad being able to withstand dive speeds near the numbers Larners source calculates and I've often seen 400km/hr being mentioned as attainable with no mention of issues.  @US93_Larner Does Biddle's account mention anything of control surface loss of that SPAD XIII?

http://memorial.flight.free.fr/SpadXIIIuk.html

[J5_Adam]

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

 What does this mean?

sarcasm

[No.23_Triggers]

3 hours ago, US93_Furlow said:

Memorial flights web page mentions the Spad being able to withstand dive speeds near the numbers Larners source calculates and I've often seen 400km/hr being mentioned as attainable with no mention of issues.  @US93_Larner Does Biddle's account mention anything of control surface loss of that SPAD XIII?

http://memorial.flight.free.fr/SpadXIIIuk.html

 

He never mentioned anything about the SPAD losing its control surfaces.

 

The full quote:

"I saw the Huns coming down on my companion and followed him as fast as I could but they attacked him before I could even get within long range of them. Luckily for him however they began shooting too far away, put a couple of bullets through his wings and warned him. He promptly stood on his nose and dove vertically for six thousand feet with his motor at extreme high speed. I never saw a machine go down so fast before and it is a wonder he did not pull his wings off. I think he would have in anything but a Spad. As it was, he stretched all the bracing wires between his wings out of tension and bent the wings themselves back an inch or two so that the whole plane had to be taken apart and re-regulated before he could fly it again".
(The Way of the Eagle, p47)

 

Having a look through (weird website design btw!), the Memorial Flight cites: "(the SPAD XIII) could withstand the stress of dives above 280 MPH followed by steep climbs", which backs up the predicted number given in the OP. 

 

You would also have to assume that the Memorial Flight means that the SPAD would survive intact in a dive above 280 MPH (450 km/h). The FC SPAD XIII fares much worse in a dive, starting to shake violently at around 350 km/h and losing its control surfaces at 370 km/h. At 390 km/h the wings fail. 

So, by comparison, the Flying Circus SPAD breaks up in the air at a speed at least 60 km/h slower than, apparently, a fully recoverable dive - according to the Memorial Flight and Rocard's prediction method. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[BMA_Hellbender]

42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Having a look through (weird website design btw!), the Memorial Flight cites: "(the SPAD XIII) could withstand the stress of dives above 280 MPH followed by steep climbs", which backs up the predicted number given in the OP. 

 

You would also have to assume that the Memorial Flight means that the SPAD would survive intact in a dive above 280 MPH (450 km/h). The FC SPAD XIII fares much worse in a dive, starting to shake violently at around 350 km/h and losing its control surfaces at 370 km/h. At 390 km/h the wings fail. 

So, by comparison, the Flying Circus SPAD breaks up in the air at a speed at least 60 km/h slower than, apparently, a fully recoverable dive - according to the Memorial Flight and Rocard's prediction method. 

 

Interesting.

 

The 350km/h figure seems to be in line with most of the French sources I could find, but even then it's difficult to know what the primary sources are and how they came to this measurement. In any case, the figure is almost always mentioned as over (plus de) 350km/h, so it would appear that the original NeoQB developers used this as their baseline and then gave it a 20-40km/h margin before catastrophic failure happens. I don't think that part of the FM/DM has changed since RoF.

 

 

I did find a French source that mentions up to (jusqu'à) 450km/h.

 

https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/840/spad-sxiii

 

I'm wondering how they got to that figure except through a mathematical estimation. And if they did measure it for real, I'm wondering how the test pilot was able to fit his huge balls inside such a cramped cockpit.

 

 

 

In all likelihood anything close to 400km/h would entail some kind of stress on the frame, and since the engine doesn't simulate soft-body physics, wing deformation or even fabric tearing, it does that instead. It's certainly possible that the control surfaces break off too soon at 370km/h. I mean, we're talking over 200 knots here... Those are mind-bending speeds for wood and fabric planes.

 

From a gameplay perspective, I'm not sure what to say or suggest. The last time I did dive measurements I found that the SPAD was better than the competition by a significant margin. I think only the Pfalz D.IIIa came close in terms of recoverable dive speed. That one is mostly spectacular because I was able to pull out of a ~290km/h dive at close to 9G (this was before the G-LOC update). For the record, most U.S. WWII fighter planes (P-51, P-47) were designed for 8G and 12G ultimate. Curious to see how this has changed with the new DM.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

it would appear that the original NeoQB developers used this as their baseline and then gave it a 20-40km/h margin before catastrophic failure happens. I don't think that part of the FM/DM has changed since RoF.

No, it doesn't appear to have done so. While doing some dive tests today the RoF / FC SPADs reacted in almost exactly the same way to an extreme power-dive up to around 375 / 380 km/h (namely - bye-bye controls). The only change perceivable is the severity of the visual shaking - in RoF it's concerning, in FC it's downright scary! 

 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I did find a French source that mentions up to (jusqu'à) 450km/h.

 

https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/840/spad-sxiii

 

I'm wondering how they got to that figure except through a mathematical estimation. And if they did measure it for real, I'm wondering how the test pilot was able to fit his huge balls inside such a cramped cockpit.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing - and really interesting, Guynemer talking about the 150 VII being too slow to fight the Halberstadt Scout?  As for the maximum speed figure - how should I know? I wasn't there. 

Joking aside and in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a test pilot dived the machine to its apex. There were plenty of absolutely mad bastards back then...to even be a test pilot in the era of wood and wire is insane enough! I think the Charles Biddle quote is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the SPAD could be dived beyond what would be considered 'safe' or even what was 'possible' (in the sense that, from the damage report, that pilot was lucky not to turn himself into a crater!). But, of course, the operative word there is 'anecdotal'.

 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

In all likelihood anything close to 400km/h would entail some kind of stress on the frame, and since the engine doesn't simulate soft-body physics, wing deformation or even fabric tearing, it does that instead. It's certainly possible that the control surfaces break off too soon at 370km/h. I mean, we're talking over 200 knots here... Those are mind-bending speeds for wood and fabric planes.

 

From a gameplay perspective, I'm not sure what to say or suggest. The last time I did dive measurements I found that the SPAD was better than the competition by a significant margin. I think only the Pfalz D.IIIa came close in terms of recoverable dive speed. That one is mostly spectacular because I was able to pull out of a ~290km/h dive at close to 9G (this was before the G-LOC update). For the record, most U.S. WWII fighter planes (P-51, P-47) were designed for 8G and 12G ultimate. Curious to see how this has changed with the new DM.

I'd have to think that, providing that the 450 km/h figure refers to a speed in which the SPAD could exit a dive intact**, wing deformation and fabric tearing not being modelled shouldn't be a problem, as it wouldn't have occurred at least up to that speed. The soft-body physics are another matter - and the article in the OP goes into some really interesting detail about it - specifically in reference to the SPAD XIII, which is helpful! I think for all aircraft, the lack of soft-body physics should be somehow counteracted to give aircraft their historical durability (or lack thereof where appropriate)  - but I imagine that would be a huge task for the devs. 

**I might not word my thoughts too well here, but - I would think a speed which tears off control surfaces, fabric, warps wings - in other words, a speed which significantly damages the aircraft -  would NOT be cited as being within its top diving speed in the context of "this plane could dive up to X speed", unless the topic was more specifically in line with aircraft overspeed and damage in power-dives. (I hope I've worded that clearly enough!) 


Ah, the question of gameplay. Tricky as always. Personally, I think that if the SPAD could dive up to speeds of 450 km/h in reality, then why not in FC? I agree that it's better than the competition (apart from the S.E, if you'd count that as competition) - but, within the current gameplay you also have the D.VII F, which climbs and generates energy disproportionately well to its opposition, as well as having a ceiling far above anything else in FC. Should that be limited for gameplay purposes too? My answer would be no - but, if that's the case, you can't then also cut the SPAD's diving ability short for gameplay-related reasons. Does that sound fair? (I promise I'm not D.VII F bashing - it just serves as a good example!) 

On a semi-related side note, I also think that the Pfalz needs a significant dive speed update. Last November I did some thorough testing of all the FC aircraft's dive capabilities, and I found that the FC Pfalz, in a completely vertical dive, couldn't get past 265 km/h (how the hell did you get it to 290?? I guess I'll have to redo my tests!). Today I dove an Albatros to 299 km/h. That doesn't add up with the Pfalz' historical reputation of being one of the most renowned German divers. I'd also be happy to back any suggestion of aircraft (such as the D.Va) flying with missing lower wings if they historically could (which von Hippel reluctantly proved they could).

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Words

 

 

Bender, when you want to come out of the SPAD closet we'll be here waiting for you.

 

https://us3pg.enjin.com/recruitment

[J5_Gamecock]

50 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

but, within the current gameplay you also have the D.VII F, which climbs and generates energy disproportionately well to its opposition, as well as having a ceiling far above anything else in FC. Should that be limited for gameplay purposes too?

 

 Define limited.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Historically accurate?

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 Define limited.

Okay - I think it's a bit of a moot point to do so, but I'll do my best...bear with me. I will preface this by saying again that I don't think the D.VII F should have any ahistorical limitations placed on it to appease anyone's sense of how the gameplay feels. 

Referring to this post as a contextual basis:

 

3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

From a gameplay perspective, I'm not sure what to say or suggest. The last time I did dive measurements I found that the SPAD was better than the competition by a significant margin. I think only the Pfalz D.IIIa came close in terms of recoverable dive speed. 

 

For argument's sake, let's say that the 450 km/h figure as stated in the sources is exactly correct. If that is the case:

 

A SPAD that can only dive up to 390 km/h is only diving at 86.7% of its historical capacity. The only reason that you would have to limit the SPAD to 390 km/h (360 km/h if you're talking purely about diving to the aircraft's apex without causing damage)  would be to make the gameplay more 'balanced' by putting an ahistorical limitation on the SPAD's diving ability. 

The Fokker D.VII F's absolute biggest strength is its climb rate, and nothing comes close to matching its service ceiling. In those two particular fields it is totally peerless - much like a SPAD that is able to dive at its historical 450 km/h would be. So, given that we've limited the SPAD's unmatched dive ability in order to make the gameplay slightly more balanced, it would stand to reason that the D.VII F's unmatched climb ability and ceiling should be limited too. In that case, let's limit the D.VII F's climb rate and max altitude to 86.7% of its historical ability so that it's not as imbalanced gameplay-wise. And, if we're doing that to the SPAD and the D.VII F, we'd better cut the Camel's top speed down to 86.7%, to be closer to the Dr.I's top speed, and cut the S.E's top dive speed to 86.7% so that it's not so overpowered vs. Albatri, etc etc etc...all to make the game more balanced. 

As you can see, just about everything that I've just written in the above paragraph is complete and utter stupid nonsense. Nothing should be stripped of its historical ability with "gameplay" as the sole reason! Therefore, I don't see any reason to intentionally leave the SPAD with a lower dive speed than it could historically produce! 

I hope I've illustrated that point clearly, moot as it may be... 

But, anyway. That's all starting to veer a little off topic, and doesn't really have anything to do with determining the SPAD's historical top dive speed. All I'm interested in now is finding out what the SPAD's historical top dive speed was and comparing to the FC SPAD. So far, the sources seem to indicate that it's somewhere around 450 km/h, which would make the FC version too slow. That's my main focus with this thread! 

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Gamecock]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

All I'm interested in now is finding out what the SPAD's historical top dive speed was and comparing to the FC SPAD. So far, the sources seem to indicate that it's somewhere around 450 km/h, which would make the FC version too slow. That's my main focus with this thread! 

 

 This is where we differ.  So far I've seen one source, (quoted by Bender above) that said that it could dive up to  450 km\h. I have to agree w/Bender here, I don't know how they came to that conclusion, especially if most other sources put it closer to 350. 

 

  The article from your original post is interesting, (it really was, thanks for sharing!), but it's still based on theory.   

 

"Many assumptions and approximations"

 

 All it really confirmed without doubt was that the SPAD wing was much more robust that the Albatros.  The 15% error factor was applied by the author of the article as a "what if" .  Also have to consider factors like quality of workmanship, inferior materials, atmospheric conditions etc. when this theory is put into practice. Because an engineer said it should work doesn't mean it will work in the day to day. If that were so, we'd have a lot fewer auto mechanics.

 

  Right now, I rather time and effort was spent on more critical issues, like current DM, invisible planes, etc.  SPAD can dive better that anything else in game, by far.  I'm not yet convinced that it's broken, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

 Bear in mind that mine is just an opposing view, nothing more. When you find more info I'll be just as curious as you about the findings so please continue. (just don't jump to conclusions)

 

*edit*  This bridge, (also covered in Rocards study) was designed by Engineers.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Bear in mind that mine is just an opposing view, nothing more. When you find more info I'll be just as curious as you about the findings so please continue. (just don't jump to conclusions)

Appreciated - and I am fighting desperately against the urge to jump to conclusions ? - my line of thinking with the Rocard figures at the moment is - assuming that it has some degree of credibility - the given figure is so drastically higher than the in-game FC version that it makes me wonder if there aren't some more accurate sources relating to the SPAD's top speed...the repeated mention of 450 km/h gives me hope, but I'm holding out for some more solid evidence. If Rocard's theoretical numbers are in line with other sources, then perfect! 

I've reached out to the French Memorial Flight guys to see what sources they have for the 450 km/h figure...fingers crossed...

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[HagarTheHorrible]

Why doesn’t a Spad engine over rev quicker, in a dive, than other aircraft ?  It seems, even with the throttle closed, one of the things that restricts a dive is the engine, in an aircraft, breaking even in a bugged engine such as the SE5a.  The Spad engine runs at 2100, but it’s prop runs at 1500, surely increased airflow over the prop would drive the prop quicker and any increase in prop speed would have a more rapid accumulative effect on engine speed ?  The gearing ratio effectively running in reverse.