FMs vs TVAL pilot notes

[No.23_Triggers]

Thought this would make for an interesting comparison after someone pointed out the TVAL notes for the Alb in the N28 thread. Everything I think is represented in FC is outlined in Green, anything I think is a mis-match to the FC planes is in Red. Things I'm not sure about are in blue. Some parts have been omitted just to condense the text down. Feel free to chip in! 

Albatros D.Va:
In flight the D.Va performs well, not nearly as well balanced and harmonized as the RAF SE.5a though. The ailerons are heavy and the roll rate isn't very spectacular, the elevator is very sensitive, almost too sensitive while the rudder is less than adequate. For me the best part is the engine, something about it gives the feeling of security, it has a healthy rumble and good throttle response. It is difficult to keep the engine warm on cold days and is easy to overheat on warm days, the radiator shutters seem to be either full open or closed and even then there isn't enough temperature control. 
 

The Albatros doesn’t appear to have any nasty habits in flight. Stalls with and without power are straight forward without a huge wing drop, they are preceded by plenty of warning and easily corrected. The engine response is very good and the “normal” throttle makes life just that much easier (as compared to rotary engines where the pilot has to regulate fuel and air while making throttle changes). 

Slow flight and glides are stable and predictable, landings aren't too different from other tailskid aircraft with the exception of the cockpit/control stick layout which makes for a rather cramped position while flaring.  After landing, rollout is a bit touch and go if there is any wind, without a steerable skid or keel, the spoon shaped skid can drift off the straight and narrow if you let it get away.

(Full article: https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/aircraft/albatros-dva/notes-flying-d-va ) 
 

 

S.E.5a:

The SE5a is user friendly right from the beginning, easy to inspect and ready for flight; easy to start and easy to fly. The SE5a handles well on the ground; it is equipped with a steerable tailskid, responsive engine and effective rudder. The only thing to be mindful of is it feels a bit heavy on the ground and can pick up speed rather quickly.  Ready for take-off there isn’t much to do other than check the temperatures and pressures, point into the wind and open the throttle. Acceleration is steady and you realize how much power the Hiss actually develops. The boxy angular ship is airborne at about 50 mph and immediately you realize looks aren’t everything - this airplane really feels good. The controls are crisp and responsive although heavier than the Sopwith Camel(?) or Triplane or even the Fokker Triplane.
 

To get a better feel for what this airplane can do, steep turns, lazy eights and wingovers are attempted, all easily carried out but an excessive amount of adverse yaw is experienced.

The adverse yaw is easily compensated for, by balancing aileron application with rudder and doesn’t prove to be a problem at all.  Next, slow flight and stalls are explored, a good idea to check before landing.... again nothing unusual other than the fact that this airplane is rather easy to fly. Adjusting the elevator trim allows the SE5a to be flown hands off something I’m not used to in a WW1 fighter. A few more stalls are investigated and a power off stall speed of 43 mph is noted. With the power pushed up a bit, a conservative top speed of 115- 120 mph is achieved! I would expect during wartime even this top speed would be increased to the reported numbers of about 138 MPH. The only aircraft that could come close was the Fokker DVII, so the SE5a was faster than anything out there and very competitive with the later produced DVII. The performance doesn’t seem to diminish with altitude either, it can maintain 120 mph right up to about 15,000 ft. After the formalities of recording figures for temperatures, pressures and airspeeds, it’s time to really get a feel for the new plane. I am still amazed that it is so easy to fly and feels so stable. Turns in either direction are simple as long as they are coordinated with the rudder. Climb performance is a respectable 750 feet per minute or so. The controls feel good at low speed and there is plenty of warning before the stall. The Se5a isn’t overly agile but it can be thrown around with a little effort and has the ability to dive away and pick up speed rather quickly.

“Compared to other Great War fighters it is rugged, reliable and very stable, and an excellent gun platform allowing an accurate shot from a greater distance.  If I were comparing it to a more modern aircraft I would have to relate it to a 1950s era Great Lakes trainer, the SE5a certainly doesn’t feel like a ninety year-old design.”

 

(Full article: https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/se-5a-reproduction/flying-se5a )

 

There is another report for the F.E.2b, but I suppose that won't become relevant to FC for a while yet....

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

Can you power-on stall the RoF / FC? I can pull continuous full deflection in a flat turn without issue.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Good thread!

 

Are you using a FFS Larner?  Otherwise I think some of the comparisons between the planes and between the planes as in FC and as in RL are a bit moot.

 

Also, personally I'd say that the SE5a in game does have an effective rudder for taxiing purposes

[No.23_Triggers]

13 minutes ago, CfC=76SQN-FatherTed said:

Good thread!

 

Are you using a FFS Larner?  Otherwise I think some of the comparisons between the planes and between the planes as in FC and as in RL are a bit moot.

 

Also, personally I'd say that the SE5a in game does have an effective rudder for taxiing purposes

Not atm, but wouldn't mind picking one up to try out someday. I don't think it makes the comparisons moot though, at least not all of them. 

Fair point on the rudder on the ground...it's more in the air where it feels a bit underwhelming ?

[US41_Low]

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Can you power-on stall the RoF / FC? I can pull continuous full deflection in a flat turn without issue.

I can check FC when I get home. I already did a power-off stall comparison for FC. 

[76SQN-FatherTed]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Not atm, but wouldn't mind picking one up to try out someday. I don't think it makes the comparisons moot though, at least not all of them. 

 

Yeah, I really just meant the bits where he compares how heavy the controls are from plane to plane

[US41_Winslow]

12 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

The controls are crisp and responsive although heavier than the Sopwith Camel(?) or Triplane or even the Fokker Triplane.

My experience as a Camel pilot in Flying Circus is the Camel's elevator is very sensitive and light, the rudder is a little heavier while the ailerons are sluggish below 100 mph, after which they become much more responsive.

[US41_Low]

7 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Can you power-on stall the RoF / FC? I can pull continuous full deflection in a flat turn without issue.

 

Just a quick go at it: 

Spad XIII: full throttle, 1000m, 53% fuel, +20 degrees, plane quickly stutters and right wing stalls and drops the aircraft nose down when airspeed reaches 80 kph. Takes a couple seconds to recover.

SE5a: full throttle, 1000m, 54% fuel, +20 degrees, plane quickly stutters and left wing stalls then drops the aircraft nose down when airspeed reaches 40 knots. Takes a couple seconds to recover.

Fokker DVII-F: full throttle, 1000m, 53% fuel, +20 degrees, plane climbs for about a MINUTE before a small stutter causes left wing to drop but is immediately recovered and climbs again.

Albatross DVa: full throttle, 1000m, 58% fuel, +20 degrees, plane climbs for about 15-20 seconds before left wing stalls much like the SE5a.

 

 

I'm not a pilot. But there ya go.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

At the vintage aviation site they say there Clerget Camel should not be run higher than 1200 rpm at sea level. Yet the Camel in FC has no problem with 1700 rpm at sea level. Why is no one talking about that discrepancy?

 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/#:~:text=The aircraft is fitted with,readily achievable with part throttle.

 

Why is no one talking about the fact that the FC Fokker Dr.I only reaches 160km/h in level flight @sea level when there are sources that state 170km/h or 180km/h?

Edited May 6, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[J5_Adam]

Ya the Clerget was over compressed. My understanding is that they’d use lower rpm at lower altitudes and increase rpms as they ascended 

[RNAS10_Oliver]

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

At the vintage aviation site they say there Clerget Camel should not be run higher than 1200 rpm at sea level. Yet the Camel in FC has no problem with 1700 rpm at sea level. Why is no one talking about that discrepancy?

 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/#:~:text=The aircraft is fitted with,readily achievable with part throttle.

I’m not seeing that stated on there? At least not the same thing you are saying there? They are saying that theirs should not be used at full throttle at sea level but that 1,200 rpm is achievable with just part throttle anyway. Though I do not know enough about engines and maybe that means the same thing? I dunno.

 

Quote

The aircraft is fitted with a long stroke Clerget which is reputed to produce 140 HP but has a limitation that full throttle should not be used at sea level. Engine ground runs had established that 1200 RPM was readily achievable with part throttle.

 

Though we can use full throttle at sea level

in ours so there is an discrepancy there. I do not know enough about engines as said. But perhaps that discrepancy could be because ours is an Clerget 9B (130 hp) whereas the Camel in the article is an Clerget 9BF (140 hp).

 

Also how are you getting your Camel to do 1,700 rpm easily at sea level? I’ve only ever done rpm that high through some degree of dive/descent. And you would have blown the engine in our Camel with rpm that high. Ours can do 1,400 easily during level flight at sea level from my experience though.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Oliver88

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, Oliver88 said:

Also how are you getting your Camel to do 1,700 rpm easily at sea level? I’ve only ever done rpm that high through some degree of dive/descent. And you would have blown the engine in our Camel with rpm that high. Ours can do 1,400 easily during level flight at sea level from my experience though.

Not in level flight obviously but when diving to sea level you can maintain 1700 rpm without the engine breaking...

Other people mention the 1200 - 1250 max rpm for the Clerget 9B 130 Camel as well...

Edited May 6, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[=IRFC=Gascan]

The Camel in FC blows its engine above 1550 RPM according to my pilots notes, which is not achievable in level flight. You have to be diving a bit to blow the engine. I'll double check tonight and see what my usual RPM is in level flight on the FlugPark.

Edited May 6, 2021 by gascan

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

At the vintage aviation site they say there Clerget Camel should not be run higher than 1200 rpm at sea level. Yet the Camel in FC has no problem with 1700 rpm at sea level. Why is no one talking about that discrepancy?

 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/#:~:text=The aircraft is fitted with,readily achievable with part throttle.

 

Why is no one talking about the fact that the FC Fokker Dr.I only reaches 160km/h in level flight @sea level when there are sources that state 170km/h or 180km/h?

 

3 hours ago, J5_Adam said:

Ya the Clerget was over compressed. My understanding is that they’d use lower rpm at lower altitudes and increase rpms as they ascended 

 

Sounds like a 145hp Clerget 9Bf, and you would be right about increasing RPMs at altitude, though they still wouldn't have reached 1400. That was likely the max attainable at sea level, for fear of detonation. No idea what their top speed would be at 1400 RPM, but more than the 190km/h which we have now. Some Camels also used the 160hp Gnome Monosoupape, so that might be worth looking into.

 

In any case, 190km/h for the Camel ASL is too high anyway. According to the Belgians the Nieuport 23, Hanriot HD.1 and Camel all could reach about 180-185km/h, and their engines were often used interchangeably (130hp Clerget 9B and 120-130hp Le Rhone 9Jb). RPM would be around 1200-1250. The Fokker Dr.I with its 110-120hp Oberursel Ur.II (a copy of the Le Rhone 9Ja) should have a similar top speed, maybe slightly lower, but not less than 175km/h. Chill will be able to tell us for sure.

 

I've been saying this since, I dunno, 2010 at least. But then they "listened to gavagai" and we got the 165km/h Dr.I and 167km/h Camel in RoF 1.034 with a quick 'n dirty RPM change instead of an FM review to give these planes their correct top speed at 1250 RPM. It's a shame about the Dr.I. Obviously it doesn't make sense that the top speed of the Dr.I is 165km/h and that of the D.VIII 190km/h with the same engine. And the Triplane. Man, the Triplane...

 

While we're on the topic: the Alb D.Va and Pfalz with a 180hp D.IIIa should similarly have a top speed of around 180-185km/h at sea level and reach about ~1600 RPM. By comparison, the "200hp" (technically still 180PS) D.IIIaü would have had a lower max permitted RPM at sea level and lower top speed, but obviously better performance at altitude, where it mattered. And they were NOT dogfighters. It wouldn't have made any sense to try and turn with Nieuports, not even with outdated Nieuport 17. The Albatros and Pfalz were built to swoop, and they could most definitely climb above 180/200hp SPADs, S.E.5as and Dolphins. They would likely have struggled by the end of the war against SPAD XIIIs, Viper S.E.5as, Bentley Camels and Snipes — but the Fokker D.VII(F) would have been the mainstay fighter by then anyway.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[No.23_Triggers]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

At the vintage aviation site they say there Clerget Camel should not be run higher than 1200 rpm at sea level. Yet the Camel in FC has no problem with 1700 rpm at sea level. Why is no one talking about that discrepancy?

 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/sopwith-camel/#:~:text=The aircraft is fitted with,readily achievable with part throttle.

 

Why is no one talking about the fact that the FC Fokker Dr.I only reaches 160km/h in level flight @sea level when there are sources that state 170km/h or 180km/h?

In this particular instance, because I was copy/pasting the "Pilot's notes" from TVAL's website and there weren't any for the Camel. But I'm all for identifying any discrepancies between FC aircraft and the real thing (when we have decent evidence for what the real thing actually did). 

As for the Dr.I, the low speed was being mentioned in the N28 thread that just got Locked (tm), and I'm sure it's been mentioned before as well. It's one of three aircraft which AFAIK don't perform up to historical spec (as sources would suggest) - the other two being the SPAD at sea level (which IIRC doesn't even achieve the stats that are listed in-game!) and the S.E. at higher altitudes (see O.P). All three could do with a fix.

 

 

9 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

While we're on the topic: the Alb D.Va and Pfalz with a 180hp D.IIIa should similarly have a top speed of around 180-185km/h at sea level and reach about ~1600 RPM. By comparison, the "200hp" (technically still 180PS) D.IIIaü would have had a lower max permitted RPM at sea level and lower top speed, but obviously better performance at altitude, where it mattered. And they were NOT dogfighters. It wouldn't have made any sense to try and turn with Nieuports, not even with outdated Nieuport 17. The Albatros and Pfalz were built to swoop, and they could most definitely climb above 180/200hp SPADs, S.E.5as and Dolphins. They would likely have struggled by the end of the war against SPAD XIIIs, Viper S.E.5as, Bentley Camels and Snipes — but the Fokker D.VII(F) would have been the mainstay fighter by then anyway.

I take it you mean 150 / 180?    

I think you're right - at least from what I remember from RoF where we had the "Super-Alb", which I'm expecting the D.IIIaü alb to be similar to. I remember one occasion in particular, where me and a wingman were surprised to find a pair of D.Vas watching us from across the front and matching our SPAD VII 180s in a climb from about 2,000m up to very high (4500 - 5000m?) where they slowly started to overtake us. I can't remember my wingman's load out, but I almost never flew with the overwing Lewis.  

Going a bit off topic here but I'd be pretty interested in having those other entente variations (High-Compression SPAD XIII, Camel variants, H.S. S.E.5a, original S.E.5, etc) to compliment the addition of the 200hp Central planes (and hopefully later on the 1917-era Central planes) - For one I think it would make the plane-set a lot more dynamic and workable for mission makers. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

40 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 

I take it you mean 150 / 180?    

I think you're right - at least from what I remember from RoF where we had the "Super-Alb", which I'm expecting the D.IIIaü alb to be similar to. I remember one occasion in particular, where me and a wingman were surprised to find a pair of D.Vas watching us from across the front and matching our SPAD VII 180s in a climb from about 2,000m up to very high (4500 - 5000m?) where they slowly started to overtake us. I can't remember my wingman's load out, but I almost never flew with the overwing Lewis.  

Going a bit off topic here but I'd be pretty interested in having those other entente variations (High-Compression SPAD XIII, Camel variants, H.S. S.E.5a, original S.E.5, etc) to compliment the addition of the 200hp Central planes (and hopefully later on the 1917-era Central planes) - For one I think it would make the plane-set a lot more dynamic and workable for mission makers. 

 

No, I meant the 180hp and 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ab and 8Ba (those names are not at all confusing), as found on the SPAD VII and HS S.E.5a (and all Sopwith Dolphins). The regular old Albatros D.III and Albatros D.V(a) with either "late" 160hp Mercedes D.III or "regular" 170hp Mercedes D.IIIa should be able to climb above all of these, though it will likely take them longer to get there as their fuel mixtures are already optimized for high altitude even at sea level. Maybe the SPAD VII would have had a similar ceiling (5500-6000m), in spite of having a slightly less powerful engine than the S.E.5a. The Dolphin with a ceiling of 6000m wouldn't have been operational yet in 2017. By the time it reached the front the Albatros D.Va might already have had overcompression available.

 

The 150hp SPAD VII should really only be a match for the Albatros D.II with "early" 150hp Mercedes D.III. According to MvR that was pretty much the last truly great Albatros airframe ever built, simply because it could turn better.

 

I just don't understand why they couldn't have been clearer with their engine designations and hp ratings 100 years ago. Couldn't they have foreseen that we'd be arguing endlessly over this? Inconsiderate huns.

Edited May 6, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[No.23_Triggers]

26 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

No, I meant the 180hp and 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ab and 8Ba

AFAIK the SPAD VII was only ever mass produced with the Hs 8Aa (150hp) and the Hs 8Ab (180hp) - the Hs 8Ba was trialled in the VII, but it was decided that a new airframe was needed to house the engine - and so the SPAD XIII was born. The 8Ba-equipped XIII is the one we have in FC at the moment. 

Later-spec XIIIs carried the higher-compression 220hp Hs 8Bd or 8Be. I'd love to get my hands on one of them in FC...

[J99_Sizzlorr]

12 hours ago, gascan said:

The Camel in FC blows its engine above 1550 RPM according to my pilots notes, which is not achievable in level flight. You have to be diving a bit to blow the engine. I'll double check tonight and see what my usual RPM is in level flight on the FlugPark.

I can get it beyond 1600 rpm close to 1700 before it breaks...

 

Wiki also states that the Clerget 9B had 130hp @ 1,250 rpm this indicates that our Camel engine over performs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerget_9B

 

There is also this french document:

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/moteursdelegende_clerget130ch.pdf

 

My french isn't that good but it also says:

 

Quote

- Le moteur 9B dessiné par Clerget en janvier 1914 est un 9-cyl rotatif en étoile refroidi par air dérivé du 9A (110 ch) qui délivre 135 ch à froid, 130 ch en utilisation normale (1 200 tours) et peut fournir 150 ch temporairement en sur régime (1400 tours).

 

Which I translate to 130 hp @1200 rpm in normal mode and 150hp @1400 rpm only temporarily

Edited May 7, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I can get it beyond 1600 rpm close to 1700 before it breaks...

 

Wiki also states that the Clerget 9B had 130hp @ 1,250 rpm this indicates that our Camel engine over performs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerget_9B

 

There is also this french document:

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/moteursdelegende_clerget130ch.pdf

 

My french isn't that good but it also says:

 

 

Which I translate to 130 hp @1200 rpm in normal mode and 150hp @1400 rpm only temporarily

 

 

This is everything you need to know, really: it can temporarily reach 150hp @ 1400 RPM in "sur régime" (overdrive/overspeed). Normal speed is 130hp @ 1200 RPM. Tolerated/authorised speed is 1250 RPM. This appears to be 135hp, which is its cold speed.

 

1700 RPM is waaay too high. The cylinders should begin to physically depart at 1500 RPM, this is the case for all Clerget/Le Rhone-type rotaries. Likely Gnome Monosoupapes could go higher because they had fewer moving parts, but not by much.

 

Anyway this is likely the same bug that allows the Fokker D.VII to go far over its max RPM after diving.

 

 

So the million dollar question is: would the Camel reach its listed max speed of 188km/h (117mph) at 1250 RPM or at 1400 RPM?

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[BMA_Hellbender]

A few more interesting bits from that document (it's too bad that few if any sources are cited):

 

The Sopwith Pup is mentioned as having used a 110hp Clerget (typically this would have been an 80hp Le Rhone). The Camel and Triplane are also mentioned as having been supplied 110hp Clergets.

 

 

 

They also feature in this list:

 

 

 

Note the Camel top speed of 173km/h, Pup 170km/h and Triplane 180km/h.

 

Finally mention is made of running the engine at "sur régime" (overdrive) for too long (for several hours), which would cause it to seize. This was eventually fixed by British engineers with British license-built British-French "Bf" Clergets and would provide 140hp.

 

 

VERY interesting indeed.

 

 

 

Now for some tests:

 

• Max RPM in FC is ~1450 with top speed 190km/h ASL
  
  
  
  
  
   
• Max RPM in overdrive according to the document is 1400, which in FC gives us 182km/h
  
  
  
  
  
   
• Max RPM in continuous is 1250 RPM, which in FC gives us 166km/h (almost identical to RoF Camel limited to 1250 RPM).
  
  
  
  
  
   
• Rated RPM for 130hp is 1200 RPM, which in RoF gives us 158km/h
  
  

 

 

 

 

So a number of things could be wrong:
 

• If top speed was indeed measured at Max overdrive RPM (1400 RPM), it should have a top speed of 188km/h there, not 182km/h. So in fact, it's too slow, but it shouldn't be able to reach 1450 RPM in level flight either.
   
• If we have a Clerget 9B rather than a Clerget 9Bf, it should seize after prolonged use between 1250 and 1400 RPM.
   
• I think it's reasonable to assume that its top speed at 1250 RPM could have been around 175km/h (the document says 173km/h), not 166km/h. Likewise for the Fokker Dr.I: 175km/h at 1250 RPM instead of 165km/h.
   
• The highest I could get the RPM to go before it seized was around 1600 RPM. This is a bit late, 1500 RPM would be more realistic.

Edited May 7, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

[BMA_Hellbender]

So a final musing: I guess they could spend time and money to review the Camel's FM completely and have it go from

190km/h @ 1450 RPM with failure at ~1600 RPM
to
188km/h @ 1400 RPM with failure at ~1500 RPM

 

...buuuut we already know that's not going to happen for a mere 2km/h. Instead they could just assume that there's a 50-100 RPM margin of error on the Clerget/Le Rhone rotaries and play with it a bit. Which is to say: leave the Camel as-is and give the Fokker Dr.I an extra 100hp. Then we'll have the old pre-RoF 1.034 Dr.I back, with its top speed of around 180km/h. Makes everyone happy!

 

What I would LOVE to see on both the Camel and Dr.I is that if you go above 1250 RPM it gives you "overdrive" and it can seize if held for too long, same as with the BMW IIIa and Mercedes D.IIIaü.

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Wiki also states that the Clerget 9B had 130hp @ 1,250 rpm this indicates that our Camel engine over performs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerget_9B

 

Not saying you're wrong about the Clerget, but wikipedia also says that "By early 1917, however, the S.VII had been surpassed by the latest German fighters such as the Albatros D.I"...there are better sources to quote 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

14 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Not saying you're wrong about the Clerget, but wikipedia also says that "By early 1917, however, the S.VII had been surpassed by the latest German fighters such as the Albatros D.I"...there are better sources to quote 

I know and I did so...I am not reading french documents out of fun to my morning coffee

Edited May 7, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Engine variations, and perhaps prop variations, I think would be helpful in Vol II for existing Vol I aircraft. There's some precedent for it in the WW2 BoX with clickable engine options in the loadout. I'd love to see Viper, Hisso, Clerget, Le Rhone, Bentley options, for example. Options for the German in-lines might also bring some new variety to existing aircraft as well. I think there's an opportunity here to add more meat to the bones of FC. And maybe it would bring back some players or increase player time if there was (1) a solution to the DM and (2) getting more mileage from the planes we have already. After that, the new content is great, but I'm concerned it will end up going down the road of adding content to something that is struggling in more fundamental ways.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I had a quick look in RoF just now to remind myself how the Hanriot performs with a similar engine.

 

HD.1 (130hp Le Rhone 9Jby) 187km/h @ ~1325 RPM

 

 

 

HD.2 (130hp Clerget 9B) 176km/h @ 1350 RPM

 

 

 

The FC Camel has the exact same speed as the Hanriot HD.2 @ 1350 RPM, which, I suppose makes sense, given that it's those huge floaters that keep it from reaching higher RPMs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and I'd forgotten how much fun it is to land on the water in the HD.2.

 

 

 

On a sidenote: sustained turn of the Hanriot HD.1 ASL with 10% fuel and empty guns is exactly 9s, in other words identical to the Albatros D.Va.

[No.23_Triggers]

On 5/7/2021 at 6:36 PM, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

maybe it would bring back some players or increase player time if there was (1) a solution to the DM and (2) getting more mileage from the planes we have already. After that, the new content is great, but I'm concerned it will end up going down the road of adding content to something that is struggling in more fundamental ways.

I've thought for a while the 200hp D.VII (which is practically confirmed - good news!) and higher-compression SPAD XIII would help balance off the 'top of the food chain' in the FC scout line-up...

- D.VII 200hp to counter SPAD XIII 200hp 
- SPAD XIII 220hp to counter D.VII F 

The Hisso S.E.5a would be a very welcome addition as well, along with the Camel variants. 

As for the DM, a couple of the 3rd PG guys have higher hopes for the FC2 planes based on what we've seen of the N28 - which as Trupo mentioned could have been designed more in line with the new DM - but that'll remain to be seen. I'm expecting that the big tests that will prove or disprove that will be the SPAD VII and the Pfalz XII (notoriously weak in RoF). 

If that was the case though, I'd hope the FC1 FMs were revisited...

[SeaW0lf]

On 5/7/2021 at 8:50 AM, =IRFC=Hbender said:

So the million dollar question is: would the Camel reach its listed max speed of 188km/h (117mph) at 1250 RPM or at 1400 RPM?

 

Taking as an example the oberursel D8 tested in the US after the war, it was running at 1390rpm in the max speed test. For how long, I'm not sure, but it would make no difference, as all planes in ROF and FC run on WEP all the time. If people get stuck on it, we gotta remember that the touted D7 was very prone to overheating according to Mikael Carlson while performing maneuvers.

 

Regarding engines, you are right. Even the the original oberursel operating manual states that the engines are not allowed to be run over 1250rpm. Nonetheless, the same manual indicates the following rpm for best results:

groundlevel 1360-1380
1000m 1260-1280
2000m 1240-1260
3000m 1220-1240
4000m 1200-1220
5000m 1180-1200

Anyways, people should stop collecting the ingame data and comparing with real life. There are many inconsistencies and mistakes, perhaps due to the limitation of the game engine. For us to compare real life data with ingame data, the game would have to go through a serious overhaul in all planes.

Our best bet is relative performance and to forget about official RPM and WEP numbers. Of course, I would love to fly these planes as they were intended, but that's not possible right now and in the foreseeable future.

Edited May 10, 2021 by SeaW0lf

[US41_Winslow]

On 5/7/2021 at 7:34 AM, =IRFC=Hbender said:

What I would LOVE to see on both the Camel and Dr.I is that if you go above 1250 RPM it gives you "overdrive" and it can seize if held for too long, same as with the BMW IIIa and Mercedes D.IIIaü.

We already have this to some extent on the Camel.  If you run it at full throttle for 20 or 30 minutes at sea level, the engine will seize.  However, once you get up a few thousand feet the engine can’t get to a high enough RPM for this to happen.

[Chill31]

On 5/6/2021 at 6:35 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

 

Sounds like a 145hp Clerget 9Bf, and you would be right about increasing RPMs at altitude, though they still wouldn't have reached 1400. That was likely the max attainable at sea level, for fear of detonation. No idea what their top speed would be at 1400 RPM, but more than the 190km/h which we have now. Some Camels also used the 160hp Gnome Monosoupape, so that might be worth looking into.

 

In any case, 190km/h for the Camel ASL is too high anyway. According to the Belgians the Nieuport 23, Hanriot HD.1 and Camel all could reach about 180-185km/h, and their engines were often used interchangeably (130hp Clerget 9B and 120-130hp Le Rhone 9Jb). RPM would be around 1200-1250. The Fokker Dr.I with its 110-120hp Oberursel Ur.II (a copy of the Le Rhone 9Ja) should have a similar top speed, maybe slightly lower, but not less than 175km/h. Chill will be able to tell us for sure.

 

I've been saying this since, I dunno, 2010 at least. But then they "listened to gavagai" and we got the 165km/h Dr.I and 167km/h Camel in RoF 1.034 with a quick 'n dirty RPM change instead of an FM review to give these planes their correct top speed at 1250 RPM. It's a shame about the Dr.I. Obviously it doesn't make sense that the top speed of the Dr.I is 165km/h and that of the D.VIII 190km/h with the same engine. And the Triplane. Man, the Triplane...

 

While we're on the topic: the Alb D.Va and Pfalz with a 180hp D.IIIa should similarly have a top speed of around 180-185km/h at sea level and reach about ~1600 RPM. By comparison, the "200hp" (technically still 180PS) D.IIIaü would have had a lower max permitted RPM at sea level and lower top speed, but obviously better performance at altitude, where it mattered. And they were NOT dogfighters. It wouldn't have made any sense to try and turn with Nieuports, not even with outdated Nieuport 17. The Albatros and Pfalz were built to swoop, and they could most definitely climb above 180/200hp SPADs, S.E.5as and Dolphins. They would likely have struggled by the end of the war against SPAD XIIIs, Viper S.E.5as, Bentley Camels and Snipes — but the Fokker D.VII(F) would have been the mainstay fighter by then anyway.

 

The Dr.I should be quite fast.  I am confident that it is faster than 103 mph at full throttle, but I have not taken precise measurements yet.  I limited myself to 1250 rpm, and my imprecise airspeed indicator was showing 105-110 mph.  This is a Dr.I at combat weight.  Once I get new pushrods, I will be able to rev it up to 1400 rpm, but I doub't I will get that in level flight.

 

I did some calculations on the pushrod strength, and I don't think it would be safe to run a 110 faster than  about 1400 rpm. At speeds greater than that, I think the pushrods will begin to stretch, and the engine will run poorly or quit.