Sustained turn performance: Late War comparison (+fixing the RoF N28)

[BMA_Hellbender]

First of all a huge thanks to @Holtzauge for really opening my eyes on how to approach the matter of sustained turn performance.

 

I recommend everyone read his paper on Camel vs. Dr.I:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fw1eo270q49jiec/FokkerDr1_Sopwith_Camel_turning_comparison_PA29.pdf?dl=0

 

 

I took a bit of a deep dive into all the data available on the late war planes in FC, RoF (and likely candidates to be added) and have come up with a system that can give a layman such as myself a general idea of how well they should perform. The truth is that RoF/FC gets most things right as it is, if you follow said logic, with perhaps a few question marks and only one glaring mistake (I think you guessed which one already).

 

 

Graph (instructions below)

 

 

Instructions
 

1. First, determine the wing loading of the plane with regards to the horizontal X-axis. The further on the left, the lower the wing loading, which is to say: the more wing available to carry the weight of the plane. All things being equal, this means the machine already has good sustained turn performance. The most obvious "group" of aircraft here are the Sopwith Camel, Fokker Dr.I, Fokker D.VI, Sopwith Triplane, Bentley Camel and Hanriot HD.1.
    
2. Second, determine the power loading of the plane with regards to the vertical Y-axis. The further to the bottom, the lower the power loading, which is to say: the more horsepower available to carry the weight of the plane. This by itself is not enough to give good sustained turn performance, though it can enhance it greatly and has an effect on instantaneous turn performance. The most obvious "group" of aircraft here are the Nieuport 28, Sopwith Snipe, SPAD XIII, Pfalz D.XIIf, Fokker D.VIIF and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.
    
3. Lastly and in some case most importantly, determine the airfoil efficiency at sustained turn performance of the plane through its colour code. These are as follows:
   
   Very inefficient
   
   > very thin airfoils (Eiffel 14 and similar): these are "SPAD wings" built for speed
   > thin airfoils (RAF 14) in triplane configuration: these are "Triplane wings" and less efficient than thin airfoils in biplane configuration
   
   Inefficient
   
   > thin airfoils (RAF 14, RAF 15 and similar): these are standard "Camel wings" and "S.E.5a wings" found on most Entente types
   
   Moderately efficient
   
   > thick airfoils (Göttingen 298) in triplane configuration: these are "Dr.I wings" and less efficient than thick airfoils in biplane configuration
   > medium airfoils (Göttingen 174 and similar): these are standard "Albatros wings" and "Pfalz wings" found on most Central types
   > thin airfoils (Type N airfoils and similar) in sesquiplane configuration: these are "Nieuport wings" and more efficient than thin airfoils in biplane configuration
   
   Efficient
   
   > medium airfoils (Göttingen 174) in sesquiplane configuration: these are "D.Va wings" and more efficient than medium airfoils in biplane configuration
   
   Very efficient
   
   > thick airfoils (Göttingen 418): these are "D.VII wings" built for lift efficiency
   
   Extremely efficient
   
   > medium airfoils (Göttingen 180) in advanced biplane configuration: these are "SS D.IV wings" with high aspect ratio similar to gliders and far more efficient than medium airfoils in standard biplane configuration
   > thick airfoils (Göttingen 418) in monoplane configuration: these are "D.VIII wings" built for absolute lift efficiency
   
    

Comments

 

• Some aircraft on the low end of wing loading that we instinctively feel should have better sustained turn performance, such as the Sopwith Triplane, fall short due to the inefficiency of their wings (thin airfoils in triplane configuration). Conversely some aircraft on the upper end of the wing loading scale have comparatively excellent turn performance due to the efficiency of their wings, such as the Fokker D.VIII (thick airfoils in monoplane configuration).
   
• Likely the late war aircraft with the best sustained turn performance are the Fokker Dr.I (low wing loading, low power loading, thick airfoil but inefficient triplane design), Fokker D.VI (low wing loading and thick airfoil) and Bentley Camel (low wing loading, low power loading but thin airfoil).
   
• The efficiency of the medium Central "Albatros wings" is debatable. The sim correctly assumes that they are quite a bit more efficient than thin Entente "Camel wings". However compared to the far more efficient thick Central "D.VII wings" some Albatros-like aircraft should likely have worse turn performance than they do now.
   
• The only major error that I could find in sustained turn performance is with the RoF N28. The sim appears to assume that it is equipped with very thin "SPAD wings" (Eiffel 14), whereas it uses thin "Camel wings" (RAF 14). There is also an error in maximum take-off weight and surface area leading to higher power loading (both are on the graph):
  
  RoF N28
  700kg MTOW
  20m2
  160hp
  WL: 700kg / 20m2 = 35.0kg/m2
  PL: 700kg / 160hp = 4.375kg/hp
  
  Actual Nieuport 28
  560kg MTOW
  16m2
  160hp
  WL: 560kg / 16m2 = 35.0kg/m2 (identical)
  PL: 560kg / 16m2 = 3.5kg/m2
  
  Eagerly awaiting the release of the FC N28!

Edited April 17, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender
formatting

[unreasonable]

Very clearly presented, a couple of questions:

 

1) How accurately does the position of each plane on the graph actually predict the observed (FC) sustained turn?

2) What is the slope/curve of the trade off: ie if you drew lines of identical sustained turns for combinations of WL and PL what would the line look like? 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Very clearly presented, a couple of questions:

 

1) How accurately does the position of each plane on the graph actually predict the observed (FC) sustained turn?

 

Thank you!

 

I need to test the sustained turn of all these planes again and compare it with the graph. Even then it will be hard if not impossible to compare it to history, as @Holtzauge mentions in his paper. We barely have data for the Camel vs. Dr.I through survivors and reproductions (9 seconds for both during the first circle, then eventually the Camel gradually takes over iirc).

 

For the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV (which prompted me to start this little research project), we have a NACA report for which the scale is barely readable:

 

 

He mentions 10s but it may very well be 12s, if you measure from the line above the first zero to the line directly above 20 and then go back (40 and 60 are entirely just floating around). And that's the problem really: in the real world nobody cares if the sustained turn is 1s more or less. Every individual aircraft will have its own slightly unique lift coefficient. In a sim where everything is by the numbers, it is literally the difference between life and death.

 

 

Quote

2) What is the slope/curve of the trade off: ie if you drew lines of identical sustained turns for combinations of WL and PL what would the line look like? 

 

Now that is an excellent question, and one to which I don't have a clear answer.

 

My best guess is that PL has little to do directly with sustained turn other than aiding in the instantaneous turn, up to a certain point where PL is so low that its prop effectively "drags the plane around the turn". I think that's what is happening (or rather not happening) with the Nieuport 28, Fokker D.VIIF and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV. The Fokker and Siemens both have very efficient wing designs that allow it to do just that in spite of having relatively high WL. The Nieuport 28 doesn't, but it has sufficiently low WL to at least outturn the Sopwith Dolphin with a similar wing design. In fact I think the devs and/or engine may have been stumped in just how well it can pull itself around a turn and may have made some changes accordingly.

 

In other words to achieve the best possible sustained turn with the lowest WL to PL as possible, this is what the graph would look like:

 

I mean, at the bottom end of PL I don't think you can still talk about an airplane, but rather a helicopter or a rocket spinning around itself. ?

 

That said, I claim no expertise in the topic and mostly wish to use the graph as a sanity check. I can sort of understand the reasoning now behind the flight characteristics of the Pfalz and Albatros D.Va in spite of their relatively high wing loading. I've also never been so sure of the fact that the RoF N28 is just plain wrong for a variety of reasons.

Edited April 17, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I passed it to the devs , but i doubt that any change to FM will be applied, beside heave tail on take off as was fixed in ROF in december 2014 .

[DD_Arthur]

Fingers crossed for the N28 in FC2.

 

Legs, eyes and testicals crossed for DM changes in FC2.

 

?

[No.23_Starling]

This analysis matches similar charts provided by Leon Bennett (aerospace engineer and historian) in Gunning for the Red Baron, which gives the Se5a an edge over the Dva in a turn, whereas in RoF and FC the SE5a dies horribly and quickly if you try to turn with anything. 
 

If the devs are happy with the SE5a FM then the issue must be the Diii and Dva.

Edited April 17, 2021 by US93_Rummell

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I passed it to the devs , but i doubt that any change to FM will be applied, beside heave tail on take off as was fixed in ROF in december 2014 .

 

I think the reason why the N28's MTOW is so high (698kg instead of 560kg) in RoF is because they added machineguns and/or extra ammo, because the empty weight seems fine, LOW even (436kg instead of 475kg).

 

That said, its wing area is too high (20m2), which is something I think they did because the historical value of 16m2 (18m2 according to some sources) would probably mean she can't even get off the ground properly. The main reason this plane flies so weird and cannot hold a turn is — I think — because it has SPAD airfoils rather than Pup/Camel airfoils. Which makes sense, because it was one of the first two planes developed in RoF, along with the SPAD XIII.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

This analysis matches similar charts provided by Leon Bennett (aerospace engineer and historian) in Gunning for the Red Baron, which gives the Se5a an edge over the Dva in a turn, whereas in RoF and FC the SE5a dies horribly and quickly if you try to turn with anything. 
 

If the devs are happy with the SE5a FM then the issue must be the Diii and Dva.

 

 

This will go up on the main post shortly (still have to add a few more).

 

Basically the RoF DH2 also needs a little bit of love.

 

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

I expect N.28 to turn out similar to S.E.5a in FC (good at everything except sustained turn).

[No.23_Starling]

4 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I expect N.28 to turn out similar to S.E.5a in FC (good at everything except sustained turn).

Did you find it good at BnZ? I used to find the rotary engine needed to be blipped and could over-cool, which made it poor compared to the SPAD. I can’t recall it being able to match many German planes in a dive. That leaves turn fighting which it couldn’t do either with its poor performance vs pretty much all the Central scouts - hence the case to revise that aspect of its FM for FC. I suppose it had a decent roll rate and climb? 

58 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 

This will go up on the main post shortly (still have to add a few more).

 

Basically the RoF DH2 also needs a little bit of love.

 

 

 

The third dimension we are missing is power weighted by altitude performance. Some of the high compression engines didn’t come into their own till above a certain alt, whilst many traditional power plants decreased in efficiency as the air thinned. I’ve often wondered what the Dviiau/F performance truly was under 3k. I suppose this was partly why so much fighting was up at nosebleed alt. Arthur Lee Gould writes about how his Pup could only out turn the Dii up high - the RoF match-up was miles away from this, with the Pup turning with the Dr1!

 

This is where the Dolphin supposedly shined too. I’ve never seen tests in FC of her above 4K vs Central scouts and whether the situation is much improved compared to the woeful performance low (sorry, I know you love her but that’s the current reality). It would be amazing to see her shine at her traditional best alt.

[BMA_Hellbender]

17 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I expect N.28 to turn out similar to S.E.5a in FC (good at everything except sustained turn).

 

I would be very much okay if it would be the way it is now in RoF, but with the sustained turn of the S.E.5a.

 

In reality I believe it outturned even the Dolphin and Snipe and fell just short of the Nieuport 27 and Hanriot HD.1.

[Monostripezebra]

Just remember the old internet proverbs of dogfighting for flightsimmers:

 

The guy with the:

"best sustained turn rate!" ->  never got to enjoy it, as those turns never were sustained and all dogfights inevitably spiraled down to the mud

"fastest turnrate!!11!" -> still got shot in the butt by the one with that smaller turnradius

"smallest turnradius!!11!" -> got so slow, that even the turnfighters boom-n-zoomed him

"highest energy state" -> was hovering so high over the map, nobody noticed he was there

"best energy retention" -> retained all energy by never taking off in the first place

"best divespeed" -> ripped his wings and is now a smoldering crater

"fastest climbrate" -> got vulched first on take-off

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[Holtzauge]

About the reference wing area: In WW1 they usually used the exposed wing area as reference area while in WW2 and today you use a larger area incorporating the area in the fuselage as reference area which is probably the reason that FC & RoF statistics list the latter as well. In addition, this does not affect the result as long as you don’t mix Cl and Cd between the two systems but stay consistent. However, the weight is of course very important to get right because it has a huge impact whatever system you use.

 

Concerning the turn rate numbers in NACA TR-174, note that the “0” is different for turn time and turn radius. In addition, if you download the report, there are other figures which show turn time as a function of speed and using those you can see that the interpretation of turn times listed in the paper for the SS D.IV are consistent.

 

Looking at wing loading and power loading gives a good first indication about stationary turn rate but as the paper mentions, the span loading is also very important and is the reason the Fokker Dr.1 is not as good as the Sopwith Camel at higher altitudes even though the Dr.1 had both a lower wing- and power loading. In fact this is the same for the almost identically power loaded Pfalz D.VIII and SS D.IV: The D.IV beats the D.VIII because of a lower span loading even though it has a much a higher wing loading.

 

So, as usual there are exceptions to the rule!

 

My understanding of how this works: For any plane keeping all other things the same, the speed for best turn rate will increase if you add more power moving the right hand (power limited) curve of the doghouse chart up to the right. In addition, reducing span loading (increasing aspect ratio) while keeping the wing area constant will have the same effect: Move the curve up to the right.

 

Conversely, if you keep the power the same and add wing area or increase Clmax this will move the left hand part of the doghouse chart curve up to the left, decreasing the speed for best turn rate.

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Holtzauge

[DD_Arthur]

11 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

 I suppose this was partly why so much fighting was up at nosebleed alt. Arthur Lee Gould writes about how his Pup could only out turn the Dii up high - the RoF match-up was miles away from this, with the Pup turning with the Dr1!

 

Fighting took place at high altitudes for the simple reason that height gives you tactical advantage.

Arthur Gould Lee didn’t say the Pup could only out turn Albatri up high. The Pup’s turn performance was superior at all altitudes.  What he does say is that the German machines were faster and could out climb the Pup at all altitudes up to around eighteen thousand feet.

This allowed them to dictate the terms of the engagement as they could simply fly away from the Pup.

The Mercedes engine had a fixed mixture which limited its altitude performance. Above eighteen thousand feet British pilots were able to continue leaning the mixture so the Pup’s engine was able to continue delivering useable power where it’s lighter weight and greater wing area gave it the advantage over the Albatross.

 

The RoF Pup’s flight model  managed to turn this on it’s head though.?

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

48 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Fighting took place at high altitudes for the simple reason that height gives you tactical advantage.

Arthur Gould Lee didn’t say the Pup could only out turn Albatri up high. The Pup’s turn performance was superior at all altitudes.  What he does say is that the German machines were faster and could out climb the Pup at all altitudes up to around eighteen thousand feet.

This allowed them to dictate the terms of the engagement as they could simply fly away from the Pup.

The Mercedes engine had a fixed mixture which limited its altitude performance. Above eighteen thousand feet British pilots were able to continue leaning the mixture so the Pup’s engine was able to continue delivering useable power where it’s lighter weight and greater wing area gave it the advantage over the Albatross.

 

The RoF Pup’s flight model  managed to turn this on it’s head though.?

 

 

From the chart it's clear that the Pup had the absolute best wing loading of the lot and it didn't have anything in particular that would have hampered it otherwise in a sustained turn.

 

Where things get complicated is with its official performance figure: 180km/h (97 knots) at sea level. This, in my opinion, is a misprint: an 8 turned into a 9 somewhere when the RNAS did its testing. The Nieuport 11 with the same 80hp Le Rhone 9C had a top speed of around 160km/h (87 knots). It had sesquiplane wings which would have made it faster, but an overwing machinegun that would have added more drag. All in all, I expect they would have had more or less the same top speed at sea level.

 

As a happy little accident following the massive nerfing of the Camel, Triplane and Pup in RoF 1.034, I think the Pup turned out alright now with a top speed of around 156km/h, meaning Pup vs D.II is now a workable scenario in RoF.

 

 

Whether the "thin sesquiplane" Nieuport 11 had a better sustained turn than the "medium thick biplane" Albatros D.II is a whole other question. I don't think it did. In fact I believe the appearance of the Albatros was instrumental in accelerating the SPAD VII into service and a transition away from light maneuverable machines to heavier fast machines.

 

The pecking order had been:

Rumpler Taube / B.E.2c / Caudron < Eindecker / Morane-Saulnier N < Airco DH.2 / Nieuport 10-11 / Halberstadt D.II < Albatros D.II / Sopwith Pup / Nieuport 16-17 < Albatros D.III / Sopwith Triplane / SPAD VII 150hp

 

That said, MvR was right: Albatros peaked early with the D.II. There never was anything quite like it coming from the Albatros stables. After all he went back to flying a Halberstadt D.II when the lower wing of his Albatros D.III broke, since the Albatros D.II had not been retained in the inventory. Anecdotally in RoF the Albatros D.II was a formidable opponent in a turnfight.

Edited April 18, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[unreasonable]

On 4/18/2021 at 3:57 AM, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

I think the reason why the N28's MTOW is so high (698kg instead of 560kg) in RoF is because they added machineguns and/or extra ammo, because the empty weight seems fine, LOW even (436kg instead of 475kg).

 

That said, its wing area is too high (20m2), which is something I think they did because the historical value of 16m2 (18m2 according to some sources) would probably mean she can't even get off the ground properly. The main reason this plane flies so weird and cannot hold a turn is — I think — because it has SPAD airfoils rather than Pup/Camel airfoils. Which makes sense, because it was one of the first two planes developed in RoF, along with the SPAD XIII.

 

 

The wing area of the 3D model in the game should be easy enough to calculate by counting pixels in the viewer, as long as you know one dimension in reality with certainty. Whether the FM uses the model's dimensions or a plugged in number is another matter.

 

From this N.28 plan you see 16 m^2 quoted - if you take the full chord and span of both wings from the plan and multiply them you get 18.31 m^2, but you need adjust for the rounded area at the tips, and also the area of fuselage under the lower wing (as Holtzauge says, included in the WW2 definitions), approximately 1.2 m^2 less by my rough calculations treating the wing tips as semi-circles. So that still does not get you to 16. I wonder if the aileron area is excluded in the plan number? Note wiki gives 15.8m^2.

 

The only way to get ~20 is to read the upper wing chord in the diagram as 1.8 instead of 1.3, which is obviously wrong, but talking about RoF so who knows what they were doing.

 

Unless this plan was a cunning French stunt, allowed to leak to confuse les Boches... 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited April 19, 2021 by unreasonable

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I found those numers in the book Flying the Old Planes by Frank Tallman

 

[SYN_Vander]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Fighting took place at high altitudes for the simple reason that height gives you tactical advantage.

Arthur Gould Lee didn’t say the Pup could only out turn Albatri up high. The Pup’s turn performance was superior at all altitudes.  What he does say is that the German machines were faster and could out climb the Pup at all altitudes up to around eighteen thousand feet.

This allowed them to dictate the terms of the engagement as they could simply fly away from the Pup.

The Mercedes engine had a fixed mixture which limited its altitude performance. Above eighteen thousand feet British pilots were able to continue leaning the mixture so the Pup’s engine was able to continue delivering useable power where it’s lighter weight and greater wing area gave it the advantage over the Albatross.

 

The RoF Pup’s flight model  managed to turn this on it’s head though.?

 

 

Long time ago I tried to somehow make sense of these qualitative statements, since we haven't enough hard data so I put them in a spreadsheet. The aim is to at least establish some sort of pecking order: Plane A is faster than Plane B is faster than Plane C etc. However, turn rate is very difficult as pilots usually group this under 'maneuverability' which can mean a lot of things: turn rate, turn radius, roll rate, stability, stick forces etc.... Still, some of these sources do mention turn rate/radius specifically, see line 19 for example.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3uVPKS38BwZ4hufXgSuekn26NiPytZeMAshIqXAflY/edit?usp=sharing

 

If anyone has more anecdotal evidence, please let me know and I'll add it.

Edited April 18, 2021 by SYN_Vander

[Angry_Kitten]

well this is fun data, however does it explain how a dolphin can create an evenly matched turn fight with a fw-190 A3?

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 4/18/2021 at 1:43 PM, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

That said, MvR was right: Albatros peaked early with the D.II. There never was anything quite like it coming from the Albatros stables. After all he went back to flying a Halberstadt D.II when the lower wing of his Albatros D.III broke, since the Albatros D.II had not been retained in the inventory. Anecdotally in RoF the Albatros D.II was a formidable opponent in a turnfight.

Biplane has genuine advantage in sustained turn over monoplane (so does a triplane). Semiesquiplane is a badly braced monoplane that got wing durability at price of drag, with marginal performance bonus and better downward visibility.

Adding lower wing, in addition to bracing the main one,  adds drag and reduces climb and horisontal speeds but also reduces stall speed, improves low speed performance and, in consequence, sustained turn. Semiesquiplane is a rotten compromise which, compared to monoplane, adds only  some of biplanes parasitic drag, loses only some of climb and horisontal speed aproper biplane would have wasted, adds only some of biplanes durability (especially if your fuselage is heavy and your half-wing is weak) and adds almost none of extra lift / stall speed/ sustained turn capabality that proper biplane would give. It's an attempt to make the plane climb faster and fly faster, and give pilot better visibility, not to make them turn better.

Edited April 20, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 4/18/2021 at 3:21 PM, SYN_Vander said:

 

 

If anyone has more anecdotal evidence, please let me know and I'll add it.

Karl Bodenschatz, "Jagd in Flanders Himmel" 

25th September we have been rejoined by Leutnant Lothar von Richthoffen[...] Leutnant Adam sat next to Lothar and briefed him on fighting enemy plane types:

- Sopwith Camel and Sopwith Pup - can be attacked with inpunity from high front or high behind. Technically they are both inferior to Albatros(!). SE (200hp) - same manner of attack but with caution - the plane is equal to Albatros, becoming superior at high altitudes. SEs usually attacks you from behind. The 140hp Spad is outright inferior to Albatros. The Spad with better engine has better speed, climbing speed and maneuvrability(!!) than Albatros. The new triplane - continued Adam - the one with all wings of equal length, is fiendishly maneuvrable and withstands even sharpest dives, but overally it's no better than an Albatros.  The new Nieuport(24) is very maneuvrable, it can escape you by diving, but otherwise is inferior to Albatros.
- To summarise? - asked Lothar
- To summarise, attack from below is valid only if you are sure the first burst will be enough. Otherwise the enemy climbs away and you never get altitude advantage. English pilots attack from distance, so it is hard to climb over them or to draw them into one to one duel. They often open fire prematurely; when you hear the shots you can turn and get below the attacker. If he has a rotary engine I recommend deep right turn, as they have problems with turning right (German pilots right?).
[...]
-Where it comes to climbing - added Wushoff - maneuvrability and dive speed, all English single seaters outclass ours. That's what Voss wrote in his report and we all agree. Most enemy machines are faster than ours horisontally, only Pup is slower. A flight of Sopwiths should never be attacked from below behind enemy lines,  it puts you in to great disadvantage.
[...]
-All English fighters - added leutnant Goors, acting leader of Jasta 11 - regardless of type attack in the same way - from above, diving from the sun, both from your front and behind. If the Englishman does not see results of attack he climbs back and tries again after some time. English flights rarely attack by teamworking and few of them get involved in long fight, which we usually win by numbers. An Englishman attacked from above tries to shake you by turns and rolls, but if he sees he can't shake you he turns back, attacks you head on, then tries to get over you which, given their climbing speed, usually succeeds.
-From what you say, gentlemen, the British planes are better than ours - said Red Barons brother after a moment of thought.
- Alas, there's no changing that.

 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Karl Bodenschatz, "Jagd in Flanders Himmel" 

25th September we have been rejoined by Leutnant Lothar von Richthoffen[...] Leutnant Adam sat next to Lothar and briefed him on fighting enemy plane types:

- Sopwith Camel and Sopwith Pup - can be attacked with inpunity from high front or high behind. Technically they are both inferior to Albatros(!). SE (200hp) - same manner of attack but with caution - the plane is equal to Albatros, becoming superior at high altitudes. SEs usually attacks you from behind. The 140hp Spad is outright inferior to Albatros. The Spad with better engine has better speed, climbing speed and maneuvrability(!!) than Albatros. The new triplane - continued Adam - the one with all wings of equal length, is fiendishly maneuvrable and withstands even sharpest dives, but overally it's no better than an Albatros.  The new Nieuport(24) is very maneuvrable, it can escape you by diving, but otherwise is inferior to Albatros.
- To summarise? - asked Lothar
- To summarise, attack from below is valid only if you are sure the first burst will be enough. Otherwise the enemy climbs away and you never get altitude advantage. English pilots attack from distance, so it is hard to climb over them or to draw them into one to one duel. They often open fire prematurely; when you hear the shots you can turn and get below the attacker. If he has a rotary engine I recommend deep right turn, as they have problems with turning right (German pilots right?).
[...]
-Where it comes to climbing - added Wushoff - maneuvrability and dive speed, all English single seaters outclass ours. That's what Voss wrote in his report and we all agree. Most enemy machines are faster than ours horisontally, only Pup is slower. A flight of Sopwiths should never be attacked from below behind enemy lines,  it puts you in to great disadvantage.
[...]
-All English fighters - added leutnant Goors, acting leader of Jasta 11 - regardless of type attack in the same way - from above, diving from the sun, both from your front and behind. If the Englishman does not see results of attack he climbs back and tries again after some time. English flights rarely attack by teamworking and few of them get involved in long fight, which we usually win by numbers. An Englishman attacked from above tries to shake you by turns and rolls, but if he sees he can't shake you he turns back, attacks you head on, then tries to get over you which, given their climbing speed, usually succeeds.
-From what you say, gentlemen, the British planes are better than ours - said Red Barons brother after a moment of thought.
- Alas, there's no changing that.

 

Cecil Lewis also commented on Guynemer's use of the Spad VII in maneuvering and said he could not shake the Frenchman in the VII once Guynemer got on-6.

Edited April 20, 2021 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Biplane has genuine advantage in sustained turn over monoplane (so does a triplane).

On the contarty. The more wings they have the worse the span loading gets. it is the reason why the Dr.I loses out in sustained turn to the Camel, the higher up, the worse it gets. They hit the breaks as soon as you pull on that stick. The Fokker Parasol can fly rings around most biplanes for exactly that reason. Stacking wings is only good for static purposes when a cantilever wing is not possible due to primitive buliding material.

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Semiesquiplane is a badly braced monoplane that got wing durability at price of drag, with marginal performance bonus and better downward visibility.

Not really. It not only gives you downward view, but the wing it adds has a very narrow chord, hence it does not add as much span loading as a double wing would do. All you do is enlarge the top wing until you get the lift you need. Nobody in their right mind would put more wing area than needed on a plane.

[SYN_Vander]

3 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Karl Bodenschatz, "Jagd in Flanders Himmel" 

25th September we have been rejoined by Leutnant Lothar von Richthoffen[...] Leutnant Adam sat next to Lothar and briefed him on fighting enemy plane types:

- Sopwith Camel and Sopwith Pup - can be attacked with inpunity from high front or high behind. Technically they are both inferior to Albatros(!). SE (200hp) - same manner of attack but with caution - the plane is equal to Albatros, becoming superior at high altitudes. SEs usually attacks you from behind. The 140hp Spad is outright inferior to Albatros. The Spad with better engine has better speed, climbing speed and maneuvrability(!!) than Albatros. The new triplane - continued Adam - the one with all wings of equal length, is fiendishly maneuvrable and withstands even sharpest dives, but overally it's no better than an Albatros.  The new Nieuport(24) is very maneuvrable, it can escape you by diving, but otherwise is inferior to Albatros.
- To summarise? - asked Lothar
- To summarise, attack from below is valid only if you are sure the first burst will be enough. Otherwise the enemy climbs away and you never get altitude advantage. English pilots attack from distance, so it is hard to climb over them or to draw them into one to one duel. They often open fire prematurely; when you hear the shots you can turn and get below the attacker. If he has a rotary engine I recommend deep right turn, as they have problems with turning right (German pilots right?).
[...]
-Where it comes to climbing - added Wushoff - maneuvrability and dive speed, all English single seaters outclass ours. That's what Voss wrote in his report and we all agree. Most enemy machines are faster than ours horisontally, only Pup is slower. A flight of Sopwiths should never be attacked from below behind enemy lines,  it puts you in to great disadvantage.
[...]
-All English fighters - added leutnant Goors, acting leader of Jasta 11 - regardless of type attack in the same way - from above, diving from the sun, both from your front and behind. If the Englishman does not see results of attack he climbs back and tries again after some time. English flights rarely attack by teamworking and few of them get involved in long fight, which we usually win by numbers. An Englishman attacked from above tries to shake you by turns and rolls, but if he sees he can't shake you he turns back, attacks you head on, then tries to get over you which, given their climbing speed, usually succeeds.
-From what you say, gentlemen, the British planes are better than ours - said Red Barons brother after a moment of thought.
- Alas, there's no changing that.

 

 

Thnx! I added it to the list. Is he talking about the Albatros DIII or probably DV? Since I assume this is September 1917....

To answer my own question: J11 was flying DV's from July 1917 to December 1917...

Edited April 20, 2021 by SYN_Vander

[BMA_Hellbender]

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

On the contarty. The more wings they have the worse the span loading gets. it is the reason why the Dr.I loses out in sustained turn to the Camel, the higher up, the worse it gets. They hit the breaks as soon as you pull on that stick. The Fokker Parasol can fly rings around most biplanes for exactly that reason. Stacking wings is only good for static purposes when a cantilever wing is not possible due to primitive buliding material.

 

Absolutely.

 

Biplanes were a compromise in order to achieve desired wing stiffness and distribute bending moments (not always apparent in the sim as wings aren't really flexing) on lighter materials with a comparatively shorter wingspan. There was also a psychological element involved, which is why parasol fighters never become the norm, in spite of having some excellent operational designs on both sides, such as the Fokker E.V / D.VIII and Morane-Saulnier AI.

 

Triplanes, well...

 

 

Triplanes were a mistake.

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Karl Bodenschatz, "Jagd in Flanders Himmel" 

25th September we have been rejoined by Leutnant Lothar von Richthoffen[...] 

Lots of really interesting stuff in there, that would turn some of what we "Know" from RoF on its head (Alb > Camel and a 180 SPAD outmanoeuvring an Alb!). The Tripehound having the manoeuvrability edge on the Alb is what I  historically understood to be the case, but wasn't so much in RoF (at least, not when I played it. I never got to try out the "pre-nerf" Triplane). 

Another thing that I've always noticed in many accounts, but doesn't really seem to be valid in RoF / FC, is the tactic of simply climbing away if you have the altitude advantage (or even from level after a fight, as Goors mentions). In RoF / FC, pretty much every plane is liable to prop-hang you given half the chance, and I've often wondered just how able to stand on their tails like that the early planes really were. The only plane I've heard specifically mentioned as frequently prop-hanging is (dare I say it?) the D.VII. 

I'm almost inclined to believe that the S.E's energy drop-off (which seems significant compared to the other FC planes) while trying to aggressively climb, even after a dive, might be closer to how the planes handled than the other FC ships. It makes prop-hanging generally not so viable (as opposed to Pfalz, Dr.I, SPAD, Camel, etc, which can essentially 'chain' prop-hangs together). 

Another point of interest for me is, what defines "inferior" in this report? Especially considering Kurt Wüsthoff's(?) account saying that the RFC aircraft were superior in climbing, manoeuvring and diving? 

EDIT: Just another thought on the manoeuvrability comparisons to the Albatros...I think one of the things that's making the Alb (apparently) ahistorically good vs other types in a flat turn is that it has practically zero ill handling characteristics no matter how much elevator you apply in a tight turn, as opposed to other aircraft which bleed energy until they are uncontrollable or that just spin out past a certain point. Same thing with the Pfalz. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by US93_Larner

[J2_Trupobaw]

Yeah, this account shows how three different pilots said largely contradictory things in the same discussion, and none corrected another :).

[No.23_Triggers]

7 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Yeah, this account shows how three different pilots said largely contradictory things in the same discussion, and none corrected another :).

I'm failing to find anything largely contradictory in what they're saying...? 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

EDIT: Just another thought on the manoeuvrability comparisons to the Albatros...I think one of the things that's making the Alb (apparently) ahistorically good vs other types in a flat turn is that it has practically zero ill handling characteristics no matter how much elevator you apply in a tight turn, as opposed to other aircraft which bleed energy until they are uncontrollable or that just spin out past a certain point. Same thing with the Pfalz. 

 

This is the whole efficient "Albatros medium thick wings" question. The question is: how much more efficient? I believe this is exaggerated in both RoF and FC.

 

If you would use the same graph but have the wing loading axis = sustained turn performance axis, I think you would end up with something* like this (move planes according to the arrow):

 

 

* It's an approximation, don't beat me to death over arrow length, okay?

 

Dark red moves back a lot (SPAD wings, Triplane wings), light red moves back a bit (Camel wings), yellow stays stationary (including the Nieuport thin sesuiplane, medium thick Albatros wings on the Pfalz and Halberstadt, and Fokker Dr.I which has efficient thick wings but in inefficient triplane configuration), light green moves forward a little bit (those are the medium thick sesquiplane wings of the Albatros D.Va), dark green moves forward a lot (those are the thick D.VII wings) and finally blue moves forward exponentially (the D.VIII and SS D.IV high aspect ratio biplane). Though really for the SS D.IV I'm just guessing, it may not have been substantially better turning than the Sopwith Snipe. Still I'm convinced the Fokker D.VI is likely the best turning plane of the late war, and second best turning of the entire war after the Sopwith Pup. And yes the Nieuport 28, even with SPAD wings (which it didn't have), should not turn any worse than the S.E.5a. That is complete nonsense.

Edited April 20, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[Angry_Kitten]

13 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

Absolutely.

 

Biplanes were a compromise in order to achieve desired wing stiffness and distribute bending moments (not always apparent in the sim as wings aren't really flexing) on lighter materials with a comparatively shorter wingspan. There was also a psychological element involved, which is why parasol fighters never become the norm, in spite of having some excellent operational designs on both sides, such as the Fokker E.V / D.VIII and Morane-Saulnier AI.

 

Triplanes, well...

 

 

Triplanes were a mistake.

 I wonder how that would 

 

Handle in a stall    

 

in a dive

    Its ok, i still got 7 more wings to shed before impact..

 

and most curiously,  how the F would it handle in a barrel roll or a loop?

[US103_Baer]

On 4/18/2021 at 9:02 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I found those numers in the book Flying the Old Planes by Frank Tallman

 

So, faster than our Spad then.  Mmm..

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

So, faster than our Spad then.  Mmm..

It only does only 1200 fpm climb. The aircraft mentioned must have a very coarse pitched propeller and you can make any plane faster this way easily.

 

It is also of note that Tallmans planes were not all pristine originals, but just old crates that were kept aloft by putting glue or tale on questionable spots that might be discovered. Talman is very candid about this. The book mentioned is very old itself and it is from an era, where you could make such barn finds flyable without much ado. There was hardly any regulation anyway. But I would never take movie props (although interesting) as a direct historic reference.