Jump to content

G Limit Reference - Camel and Dr.I


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

Generally, I think the analysis reaches tolerable conclusions within the parameters it chooses to address.  

 

That said, the examination doesn't seem comprehensive and maybe not entirely objective?


Of course he does, and he admits it; most of factors you mention are external or hard to measure. The biggest missing part is roll performance (where Dr.Is short wingspan becomes an advantage, and what Dr.I pilots use against Camel in game). The article literally calculates what would happen if two RoF AIS were given Camel and Dr.I and tried to do only thing they knew, outturn each other. 

The load limits (part the thread is about) are really interesting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Oh... nice find. Just time for a quick skim and read of the conclusions... some people are not going to like this. ;) 

 

Isn't that @Holtzauge ?

 

46 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

It is! I only just realized that.  We have such a fantastic group of WWI aviation enthusiasts here on the forum and in the FC skies 🥂

 

You gentlemen are jumping to conclusions far too quickly! That is of course ONE explanation but there is always the possibility that there are other crazy Swedes out there doing C++ simulations! ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Todt_Von_Oben: I have been at work so I have not been able to reply until now but I will try to answer from memory what I remember you posted earlier:

 

First of all a Fokker Dr.1 skid turn has a very low rate of turn and will slow you down even faster than an ordinary turn so maybe a good move to get in a snapshot or throw off the aim of a pursuer but when skidding you are basically using the fuselage as a wing to move you sideways which will not be very efficient compared to banking and using the wing.

 

In addition, IIRC then you asked about the limitation that “only co-ordinated turns” were analyzed and not the effects use of “top rudder”, “cross-controlled ” and other piloting techniques, “going outside the envelope” to improve turn? The reason for doing that is that to the best of my knowledge, the best rate of turn is achieved when coordinated and riding on the edge of the envelope (Clmax) and not outside it. Of course you can always trade altitude for turn rate but that is also covered in the paper (spiral dive) so I’m not sure what kind of techniques you are thinking about? OTOH the FC simulator we have here is very close to reality and if you think there are better ways to improve turn performance than what is covered in the paper then it should also be possible to show that in-game so if you have some ideas about that you could perhaps post a track or a video demonstrating this?

 

However, a couple of points that the Dr.1 does have in its favor is handling: An average Dr.1 pilot will probably feels more comfortable being close to stall than an average Camel pilot due to the very different post-stall characteristics of the planes but then we are not comparing the airplanes capabilities. Roll speed for sure: The balanced ailerons on the Dr.1 are an asset and the ailerons on the Camel a hindrance and that is actually covered in the paper.

 

When it comes to what Trupobaw quoted above about “tolerable conclusions” and “lack of objectivity” I’m somewhat at a loss as what you mean by that so please do elaborate.

 

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:


Of course he does, and he admits it; most of factors you mention are external or hard to measure. The biggest missing part is roll performance (where Dr.Is short wingspan becomes an advantage, and what Dr.I pilots use against Camel in game). The article literally calculates what would happen if two RoF AIS were given Camel and Dr.I and tried to do only thing they knew, outturn each other. 

The load limits (part the thread is about) are really interesting.

 

 

So your takeaway from the paper is that it’s only applicable to what would happen if two RoF AIS fought? Ever heard about such a thing as a turn fight? You know, where two pilots turn in circles and try to get on each other tails? IIRC I have read somewhere that that actually did happen sometimes in WW1 but what do I know?……....

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

So your takeaway from the paper is that it’s only applicable to what would happen if two RoF AIS fought? Ever heard about such a thing as a turn fight? You know, where two pilots turn in circles and try to get on each other tails? IIRC I have read somewhere that that actually did happen sometimes in WW1 but what do I know?……....

 

I think he was complimenting the computations in terms of having AI fly a "perfect" turn fight.  The result would be what you have predicted

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the roll thing: we all know the realCamel ailerons were horrid, adverse yaw etc, Dr.1's are better, but who uses them to bank anyway? I don't, at least not much. Use the rudder, with the ailerons only for fine adjustment. So I wonder how much of an advantage for the Dr.1 this is in practise?

 

Fascinating paper BTW @Holtzauge  especially on the practical effects of wingspan for our planes; knew it was useful for U2s,  gliders and seabirds to have long narrow wings but it had not occurred to me that it could make such a big difference to a scout design.  Always something new to learn!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

RoF AI is infamous for always turning, rather than trying to apply any means mentioned by Todt or myself, so it's ideal test pilot for this article. Even Hawker had tried to change the direction of turn in his fight with MvR. The paper also gives 5m 34s (and 28 full circles) as time needed for Camel to eventually outturn the Dr.I - in practice, planes will reach the deck and (unless they are RoF AI) they will have to break away (as Hawker did). 

The paper does not consider tactics, or even tactical means that both planes provide to pilots. It compares their performance in single maneuver. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

On the roll thing: we all know the realCamel ailerons were horrid, adverse yaw etc, Dr.1's are better, but who uses them to bank anyway? I don't, at least not much. Use the rudder, with the ailerons only for fine adjustment. So I wonder how much of an advantage for the Dr.1 this is in practise?

 

Fascinating paper BTW @Holtzauge  especially on the practical effects of wingspan for our planes; knew it was useful for U2s,  gliders and seabirds to have long narrow wings but it had not occurred to me that it could make such a big difference to a scout design.  Always something new to learn!

 

Yes, I was surprised myself about the results: It turns out that the wing profile drag is of minor importance and the overwhelming part of the drag is still the induced drag (more than 75% IIRC). What really surprised me with the results though was how quickly both the Camel and Dr.1 slow down when you turn them in an instantaneous turn: I discussed this with Mikael Carlson who confirmed it and I’m sure Chill has similar experiences with his Dr.1.

 

56 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

RoF AI is infamous for always turning, rather than trying to apply any means mentioned by Todt or myself, so it's ideal test pilot for this article. Even Hawker had tried to change the direction of turn in his fight with MvR. The paper also gives 5m 34s (and 28 full circles) as time needed for Camel to eventually outturn the Dr.I - in practice, planes will reach the deck and (unless they are RoF AI) they will have to break away (as Hawker did). 

The paper does not consider tactics, or even tactical means that both planes provide to pilots. It compares their performance in single maneuver. 

 

Well, you are of course free to brush off the results for this “single maneuver” if you like but seeing that people like Robert Shaw and John Boyd think turn rate is an important part in the fighter pilot's toolbox is good enough for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The paper does not consider tactics, or even tactical means that both planes provide to pilots. It compares their performance in single maneuver. 

That is not the point of the paper. Any plane having ulterior sources of energy will turn better than a comparable other aircraft that does not. This is why turn fights end up on the deck. You gotta be quicker then the other for angles, and to do so altitude is your creditor.

 

This paper shows what happens if the altitude bias is not present. But it does adress your question in the sense that in consequence it puts the Camel on top of the Dr.I in a maneuvering fight, as it bleeds less energy in turns. The pilots have to make from that what they can, but you see, it's not a good message for the Dr.I unless he manages to keep the Camel at such close distance, where plain agility can make a the difference.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article but in our game universe I want to see out FC Dr.1 be based on ROF DR.1 FM pre December 2014 patch as Camel is.  Devs  admitted that last ROF FM patch  was a mistake   FC Camel is based on pre December ROF FM patch and  make this performance gap vs DR.1 sky rocket high. 
In perfect word devs woud make use of telemetry data provided by Chill and make new exceptionaly  genuine FM for Dr.1 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I want the Dr.I in our game to match real world specs, not any historic game version.

 

Agreed and and I think most of us do: Just because the paper is a about turn performance does not mean that the paper claims that turn rate is the sole ingredient to salvation. It simply tries to get to the bottom of this performance aspect since there is no historical data on this as opposed to climb and speed data (scanty as it is). In fact the Dr.1 has one very potent advantage over the Camel: Climb rate which also seems to be something the Germans put a premium on since they consistently used lower pitch props than the Entente scouts.

 

And no one is contesting that the Dr.1 was good in terms of handling: Mikael Carlson told me that the Dr.1's controls remain light even at higher speeds while the Pfalz D.VIII controls get set in concrete. In addition, apparently the gyroscopic forces on D.VIII are a whole different ballgame compared to the Dr.1 which is maybe not so strange if you look at the diminutive tail surfaces on the D.VIII in combination with the huge Siemens-Halske rotary and hefty four bladed prop. He also said that if he ever had to do battle he would hands down chose the Dr.1 over the Fokker D.VII on the grounds of handling so sure, handling is important, but so is climb, speed AND turn rate. Isn't that something the game teaches us as well? You play the hand you are dealt: If you get a SPAD XIII you BnZ , if you are given a Fokker Dr.1 you turn and burn.......

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

On the roll thing: we all know the realCamel ailerons were horrid, adverse yaw etc, Dr.1's are better, but who uses them to bank anyway? I don't, at least not much. Use the rudder, with the ailerons only for fine adjustment. So I wonder how much of an advantage for the Dr.1 this is in practise?

 

 

 

The aileron thing is all about the difference between an energy fighter and a turnfighter, so neither is technically correct in all circumstances. To maintain a sustained turn you do need to apply rudder as required to maintain a level turn but if you were using the Camel (say) as an energy fighter then the requirement for a level (sustained) turn disappears because you are relying heavily on rolls and yoyos in the vertical plane. The use of the rudder in a sustained turn (as opposed to an instantaneous-turn) is energy expensive, which an energy fighter is trying to avoid in favour of airspeed. This applies to all combat aircraft and it depends on your choice of tactics (and aircraft design).

 

 

 

Edited by Rail
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rail :huh: My comment has nothing to do with energy fighting vs turnfighting - it is to do with the best way to roll a WW1 plane, especially a Camel, not with how much rudder you need to sustain a turn. The rudder on a Camel rolls  the aircraft much faster than the ailerons, which themselves create a huge amount of drag, manifested by adverse yaw. (Which may be somewhat under modelled now in FC).

 

I don't care whether you think you are a turnfighter or an energy fighter. If you want to roll a Camel quickly, use the rudder.  (Have read Shaw too,  although my copy is now a bit brittle and oxidised).    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

@Rail :huh: My comment has nothing to do with energy fighting vs turnfighting - it is to do with the best way to roll a WW1 plane, especially a Camel, not with how much rudder you need to sustain a turn. The rudder on a Camel rolls  the aircraft much faster than the ailerons, which themselves create a huge amount of drag, manifested by adverse yaw. (Which may be somewhat under modelled now in FC).

 

I don't care whether you think you are a turnfighter or an energy fighter. If you want to roll a Camel quickly, use the rudder.  (Have read Shaw too,  although my copy is now a bit brittle and oxidised).    

 

I don't disagree but you are trapped into thinking level-flight. How about a wingover-roll, yoyo,  barrel-roll or a displacement-roll (barrel roll attack)? All of these things are rolls or semi-rolls! Any out-of-plane roll primarily relies on aileron and angle-of-bank, which also determines the lift-ratio in proportion to angle-of-bank. If you turn using primarily the rudder you introduce an element of skid. That is not a sustained turn.

 

 

 

Edited by Rail
update
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God man what are you on about? A simple observation that the rudder rolls the Camel faster than the ailerons turns into this. Trying to roll the Camel with ailerons alone introduces slip due to adverse yaw. In Arango's Camel lecture he explains how entering a turn in the real thing using ailerons alone is not even possible.

 

As to being "trapped into thinking level flight" that is beyond ridiculous. I almost never turn WW1 planes level.

 

Just fly the plane how you like, but stop trying to give me lessons on it. I have been messing about in these things for over a decade.  

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tu

38 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Good God man what are you on about? A simple observation that the rudder rolls the Camel faster than the ailerons turns into this. Trying to roll the Camel with ailerons alone introduces slip due to adverse yaw. In Arango's Camel lecture he explains how entering a turn in the real thing using ailerons alone is not even possible.


  

 

 

LoL Steady on old chap. Who said anything about rolling the aircraft on ailerons alone? Simply put, you are talking about a snap-roll (uncontrolled or instantaneous roll) and I am talking about a controlled roll (controlled flight). Misunderstandings happen so don't lose your cool over this. Insults are a symptom of running out of argument.

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rail
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rail said:

Tu

 

 

LoL Steady on old chap. Who said anything about rolling the aircraft on ailerons alone? Simply put, you are talking about a snap-roll (uncontrolled or instantaneous roll) and I am talking about a controlled roll (controlled flight). Misunderstandings happen so don't lose your cool over this. Insults are a symptom of running out of argument.

Cheers.

 

 

The Camel rolls better with rudder, ailerons are for fine tuning only. Try it. Also stop telling me what I am talking about.

 

Actually you can to your heart's content, since I will not see it. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 6:01 PM, Chill31 said:

I found this nice paper while searching the net, and the gentleman lists a British report for the Load Limit on the Camel at 5.4 Gs.  It is a cool article, and a lot of the data matches my own findings in the Dr.I.  For your consideration: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7n9lbz68dhh44b3/FokkerDr1_Sopwith_Camel_turning_comparison_PA21.pdf?dl=0

 

Thank you, Chris.  :salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Oh man. This is getting way too heavy. I'm gonna cook up a vat of lentils with pumpkin. I'm just mad about saffron. 

And saffrons mad about me.  🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost666 said:

And saffrons mad about me.  🤣

 

Quite rightly. But we're not here to talk about electrical bananas. This is a serious topic and I regard @Chill31 with the greatest respect. And one hell of a lucky guy doing what he does. So please carry on with the camel/dr1 discussion. I was merely having a senior moment. :huh:

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather makes you wonder where the Dolphin went wrong, with it's nice long wings.  I conceed that it might have been slow in rolling into a suitable bank angle, but if span loading is the bee's knees for a sustained turn, given suitable relative power, from the engine, then it should be a real "Pup" of an aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Rather makes you wonder where the Dolphin went wrong, with it's nice long wings.  I conceed that it might have been slow in rolling into a suitable bank angle, but if span loading is the bee's knees for a sustained turn, given suitable relative power, from the engine, then it should be a real "Pup" of an aircraft.

Consider what he wrote in the paper though...if the planes are closely matched, spiraling for even a minute in combat is an eternity.  Even if the bandit isn't surprised, one pilot is likely to start with some sort of advantage, and that will translate to hopefully one shot opportunity.  As a defender, a role reversal is a treat.  Living another day is the goal though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Consider what he wrote in the paper though...if the planes are closely matched, spiraling for even a minute in combat is an eternity.  Even if the bandit isn't surprised, one pilot is likely to start with some sort of advantage, and that will translate to hopefully one shot opportunity.  As a defender, a role reversal is a treat.  Living another day is the goal though.

 

Yes, in terms of turn performance it’s basically a draw: Especially in the slightly updated version of the paper (there have been two updates since the first was posted). In the latest version of the paper the Dr.1 is looking slightly better at low level while the Camel retains the upper hand at higher altitudes.

 

In addition, in this latest version there is a new added chapter with info from Mikael Carlson about the handling characteristics of his Dr.1.

 

Would appreciate if you read that as well Chris and let me know if there is more on the Dr.1 handling that should be added or clarified after you have tested with the new bigger engine which I guess is basically the same in terms of weight and performance as Mikael’s Le Rhone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...