Albatros Cruise RPM

[co199]

I apologize if this isn't the correct place to post, but I'm trying to learn to fly these kites without any sort of joystick curves and whatnot. I've read the FAQ and the "tier" ranking of planes but haven't figured out what the appropriate cruise RPM is for the Albatros. Unlike the WW2 planes, there's no real "cruise" or "combat" settings in the datasheet. Since these birds don't have trim, blasting around on full throttle makes for a tired hand since she's tail heavy - I've found between 1000-1100 RPM at about 1000feet allows for relatively "fingertip" flight parameters, but she's awful slow...I suppose that's why it's "bronze" tier. 

 

Does that sound about right?

[unreasonable]

They are all pretty slow, especially if the map has any wind in it. Prevailing westerly winds were a significant advantage to the Germans on the Western front.

 

The other way to cruise at a given rpm without straining your wrist is to get higher: the higher you go the less forwards stick pressure you need.  1,000 ft is awfully low, well within ground fire range from MGs. (Assuming that is not a typo).  10,000ft plus is a more realistic and tactically advantageous height unless you are tasked to attack or defend ground units.

 

So I recommend using the tail heaviness to climb hard after take-off at full power until you reach a desired altitude and then reduce rpm until the stick pressure is not too uncomfortable. 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I fly with rpm maxed otherwise you don't get anywhere.

[co199]

42 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

They are all pretty slow, especially if the map has any wind in it. Prevailing westerly winds were a significant advantage to the Germans on the Western front.

 

The other way to cruise at a given rpm without straining your wrist is to get higher: the higher you go the less forwards stick pressure you need.  1,000 ft is awfully low, well within ground fire range from MGs. (Assuming that is not a typo).  10,000ft plus is a more realistic and tactically advantageous height unless you are tasked to attack or defend ground units.

 

So I recommend using the tail heaviness to climb hard after take-off at full power until you reach a desired altitude and then reduce rpm until the stick pressure is not too uncomfortable. 

 

Thanks for the tips. 1,000 feet wasn't a typo - I was just playing around in free flight. I'll do some experimentation with climbing! Thank you very much.

[Rail]

Well, there is some disparity here because these aircraft could (generally) be trimmed on the ground at the request of the pilot. Specifically, I believe that the Fd7 and others had adjustable jack-bolts securing the tail-plane assembly to the fuselage. This means that the aircraft could be trimmed for various level-flight speeds (cruise-speed) by simply adjusting the jack-bolts on the ground. I will post the source when can find it. The Se5a , of course, had a trim-wheel which altered the angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer in-flight. There are multiple ways of trimming an aircraft including the use of ballast and so I suppose it remains an open-question. Some aircraft were deliberately unstable to enhance maneauvrability: notably the Camel and the Dr1. These were flown 'hands-on' all the way.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Rail
Typo

[J2_Trupobaw]

Planes rigged to be tail heavy are more maneuvrable; planes rigged to be nose heavy are more stable.

 

There is no "cruise" setting because you can run Mercedes at top R.P.M all the time and it won't blow the engine (unlike WW2 birds). My guess for optimal fuel consumption is somethibg about 1200 R.P.M, but, who bothees with that in game?

 

(I wonder if it is possible to include limit on airfield fuel supply in mission logic for events like Black September - use it up, ditch planes with fuel still on, and there may not be enough to refuel or take a new plane. It was real issue for Germans in late 1918.)

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Taking the right fuel can be important for certain planes and certain circumstances. I've had some long missions in the Bristol, longer than the usual recon or single target out-and-back, where me and a couple others hit several targets deep behind enemy lines. Got into a couple dogfights, then ran out of fuel just as I was making my first firing pass on the last guy blocking our path home because I forgot to bump up my fuel load from the usual. I've also backed off the throttle to cruise when defending point targets like Observation Post, Balloon, or Recon. The N28 seems particularly fuel-hungry. Reducing throttle doesn't reduce your fuel consumption due to the odd ignition switch it uses, so I have taken to adjusting mixture to act as a sort of throttle.

Doesn't the Finnish server have a supply system for the forward airfields to make sure that you're moving supplies up to allow you a shorter flight to the front?

[unreasonable]

Fuel shortages can be an issue if you are in very long missions - probably rarely an issue to MP but in a career mode it might be relevant, but only if realistically long and high patrol paths are required. The other problem with reducing rpm to cruise comfortably is the possibility of over-cooling your engine at high altitude especially in winter even with fully closed radiators. 

 

I have not explored this in FC yet as there is not much relevant content, but this used to be a problem in RoF career missions. Always take the engine thermometer  - and keep an eye on it!  

[Rail]

8 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 

 

There is no "cruise" setting because you can run Mercedes at top R.P.M all the time and it won't blow the engine (unlike WW2 birds). My guess for optimal fuel consumption is somethibg about 1200 R.P.M, but, who bothees with that in game?

 

 

That is true to some extent but there is often confusion about the meaning of 'cruise-speed' . It is a reference to level-flight speed with zero input from the pilot via the throttle and joystick. In other words, it is the natural 'instinct' of the plane to fly at that specific speed (with or without power). In other words, without power the plane will naturally dive in an attempt to reach 'cruise-speed'  and thereafter it will level out and begin to climb (porpoise) in order to retain 'cruise-speed'. It is the aircraft's attempt to re-establish stability in the manner of a glider.

Cruise-speed is an aerodynamic quality of the air-frame/weight ratio and it is not affected by RPM (power). However, the plane can be physically trimmed to alter the cruise speed, either on the ground or in-flight. OTOH: Level-flight-speed (as opposed to cruise-speed) can be anything you like by using pilot input (throttle and joystick).

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Rail
typo

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, WWI planes did have a form of trim that we don't - shifting your seating position. "Flying by the seat of your pants" was not a metaphor back then.  You could alter the aircraft's balance quite significantly just by leaning back and forth. This still works with ultralights and the like (in fact, that's one of the primary ways to steer a paraglider).

 

In fact, this is why aircraft such as the I-16 had no adjustable trim. "Seat of pants trim" was thought to be sufficient, with ground-adjustable tabs for coarse adjustments.

[J2_Trupobaw]

8 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, WWI planes did have a form of trim that we don't - shifting your seating position. "Flying by the seat of your pants" was not a metaphor back then.  You could alter the aircraft's balance quite significantly just by leaning back and forth. This still works with ultralights and the like (in fact, that's one of the primary ways to steer a paraglider).

 

In fact, this is why aircraft such as the I-16 had no adjustable trim. "Seat of pants trim" was thought to be sufficient, with ground-adjustable tabs for coarse adjustments.

Should this be mappable to trim axis, or to TrackIr ??

Edited May 18, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[jollyjack]

Nope, to your seat .... we need USB seats.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_2021_02/1961138677_FlightSimulatorcartoon.jpg.79a6b4400e476556f253652227b44089.jpg

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

With Force Feedback!

[unreasonable]

35 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, WWI planes did have a form of trim that we don't - shifting your seating position. "Flying by the seat of your pants" was not a metaphor back then.  You could alter the aircraft's balance quite significantly just by leaning back and forth. This still works with ultralights and the like (in fact, that's one of the primary ways to steer a paraglider).

 

In fact, this is why aircraft such as the I-16 had no adjustable trim. "Seat of pants trim" was thought to be sufficient, with ground-adjustable tabs for coarse adjustments.

 

Citation please.

 

Maximum weight for a powered ultralight weighs is ~115 kg, 70 kg unpowered.   Paragliders weigh ~20 kg - ie a fraction of the weight of the pilot.

 

The lightest FC aircraft is the Dr1 with a take off weight of 571kg. It will still be at ~500kg when the fuel and oil run out. FC planes with in line engines are approaching 1,000kg.  The I-16 "standard" weight is 1878kg 

 

No one expected the pilot to be able to hold his body in a specific position to maintain a certain trim in WW1 - impossible when turning the plane at high load factors, or turning the body to look behind every few seconds.

 

Planes were expected to be flown hands on for relatively limited periods. Consideration of reducing stick forces to make longer flights less taxing was in it's infancy: although you can see it emerging in the SE5a with its adjustable stabiliser, two decades before the I-16. 

 

These planes were not made with the expectation that the pilot would trim by moving his body. They were made with the expectation that - in most cases - trim was unnecessary because pilots would always maintain some stick pressure and would be able to do so for the limited duration of the flight.  

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, this is why aircraft such as the I-16 had no adjustable trim. "Seat of pants trim" was thought to be sufficient, with ground-adjustable tabs for coarse adjustments.

Soviet aircraft trim the pilot, comrade!

 

But the notion that the pilot can change trim of the aircraft, like a 700 kg biplane, by "moving back or forward" is stretching it a bit far. How the heck are you gonna do that? Not wearing seat belts, especially in open cockpit (not that the plexi helps much otherwise), is rather adventurous.

[Dragon1-1]

That's just what I heard from people who fly such aircraft.  I'm not sure how well this "flying with your ass" actually works, but generally, aircraft are quite sensitive to the exact position of their center of mass, especially fighters. Trim changes arising from small variations in power and airspeed are usually pretty small. Of course, if you're not anywhere close to that "sweet spot" airspeed, altitude and power combination, you won't be able to trim the ship that way.

[J2_Trupobaw]

We need to ask Chill.

[PhilthySpud]

I’m not too sure about using body weight as a routine method of trimming Great War aircraft, but I can say this: many years ago some mates and I went flying in a Cessna 172 (MTOW about 1,000 kg). When we were set up in cruise, my mate in the left seat let my other mate in the right seat - who wasn’t a pilot - have a fly. I was in the back seat and cunningly leaned forward as if to have a chat. The nose slowly dropped and my mate adjusted the trim accordingly. So I leaned back in the seat and the nose started to rise. Re-trim again. Lean forward, nose starts to drop...well, you get the idea. My mate in the right seat couldn’t work out why he couldn’t get the aircraft trimmed properly, meanwhile my other mate and I were struggling to keep straight faces.

 

On another occasion I was in the jump seat of a SAAB 340 (MTOW about 13,000 kg). I asked a question about the Flight Director and the Captain told me “We call it the ‘Flight Attendant Director’ as we can tell from the pitch demand where the Flight Attendant is in the cabin!” 

 

So, yeah, in your average Great War aircraft leaning backward or forward - if that was even possible in the often cramped cockpits of the day - would certainly be enough to affect the trim appreciably.

[Dragon1-1]

Yup, that's what I was talking about. In addition, a fighter will usually have its center of mass close to center of lift, and the pilot seated closely to both of them. If anything, the effect would be more pronounced in a WWI fighter. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Forgive the stupid question,  but do the developers plan on adding response curves adjustments  ( a la ROF), or are we just supposed to accept the constant forward stick requirement for level flight on some (Dr1,  pfalz, etc) of these birds?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

No, just constant craving.

[Rail]

On 5/18/2021 at 12:25 PM, unreasonable said:

 

Citation please.

 

Maximum weight for a powered ultralight weighs is ~115 kg, 70 kg unpowered.   Paragliders weigh ~20 kg - ie a fraction of the weight of the pilot.

 

That is an interesting question considering that weight is exactly balanced by lift at Cruise or Level-flight speed. That means that any change in the lift/weight ratio is bound to change the angle-of-attack around the COG fulcrum. The question is really about 'by how much'? (I don't have the answer).

Cheers.

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, the answer is in a post right below.  

On 5/19/2021 at 11:43 AM, PhilthySpud said:

On another occasion I was in the jump seat of a SAAB 340 (MTOW about 13,000 kg). I asked a question about the Flight Director and the Captain told me “We call it the ‘Flight Attendant Director’ as we can tell from the pitch demand where the Flight Attendant is in the cabin!” 

Also see the hilarious story about how a passenger can mess with trim on a Cessna. While I don't recall where exactly I saw the "you literally fly them with the seat of your pants", but it was from a guy who really did fly vintage aircraft, and so knew what they were like. Sadly, without a motion platform and chair with strain gauges in the mounts, I don't see this being practical to simulate.

 

Of course, that should also mean that the leaning out of the cockpit should throw the plane completely out of whack, especially if you also stick your head out into the airflow. I'd love to see that modeled someday.  

 

[ZachariasX]

I find it very, very scary not having seatbelts fastened properly when flying in an aerobatic open cockpit biplane. When you can move such how it is discussed here holding on to the stick is about your only hope to arrive to your destination together with your aircraft.

 

 

„We‘re upside down!“

“I know“

“Gimme that stick!“

“Impossible.“

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

While I don't recall where exactly I saw the "you literally fly them with the seat of your pants", but it was from a guy who really did fly vintage aircraft, and so knew what they were like. Sadly, without a motion platform and chair with strain gauges in the mounts, I don't see this being practical to simulate.

 

It would be very easy to implement for a player running a 6DoF headtracking  system.  Probably better if they just don't.

[unreasonable]

"Flying with the seat of your pants" simply means that a pilot can feel the motion of the aircraft through his body, which we obviously cannot, not that you use the seat of your pants to fly. You use the joystick and rudder. 

 

Even in a powerful heavy aircraft where shifting a little on the seat would have no effect on trim, a real pilot can still fly by the seat of his pants. A pilot concerned with high g manoeuvres, or looking around constantly in level flight, cannot expect to control his aircraft motion by his body position.   

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

"Flying with the seat of your pants" simply means that a pilot can feel the motion of the aircraft through his body, which we obviously cannot, not that you use the seat of your pants to fly.

I know, but I'm telling you what the pilot who told me that said. Of course you use the stick and the rudder to fly, but if all you do is cruising around, then you'll be holding those in one position, and the control that you use the most is trim. In a Cessna, that means fiddling with that big trim wheel and using the fuel tank selector to trim roll (unless you're in one of those fancy new models with aileron trim). In an Albatross, that would mean finding a seating position where it flies straight.

 

I suppose a 6DOF tracker would work for implementing this, but without a motion platform you'd only get one part of a feedback loop. That probably wouldn't be very fun, although I suppose it'd be a cool thing to model for those who do have a motion platform.

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I know, but I'm telling you what the pilot who told me that said. Of course you use the stick and the rudder to fly, but if all you do is cruising around, then you'll be holding those in one position, and the control that you use the most is trim. In a Cessna, that means fiddling with that big trim wheel and using the fuel tank selector to trim roll (unless you're in one of those fancy new models with aileron trim). In an Albatross, that would mean finding a seating position where it flies straight.

 

 

No it does not. Please think about this for a while.

 

A pilot in a real Albatros in WW1, cannot "find a seating position where it flies straight" because he has to constantly turn and lean to look around, especially behind and below his tail. If that moves the trim of his plane, he will move his stick to compensate.

 

Much of the obvious out of trim movement on these crates was fore and aft: ie you needed to exert stick pressure, usually forwards, to fly straight and level or climb at a controlled rate, unless you were at low speed or high altitude. If you are climbing from SL at full power, for thirty minutes, no way can you lean forwards to control your trim. 

 

Then there was the tendency to yaw. How exactly is the pilot supposed to move on the seat to counteract yaw? 

 

FYI a number of planes before the I-16 actually had a form of trim: the DH-2 and SE5a, for instance. Those planes without trim controls were not built that way because the pilots were expected to be holding their bodies in a rigid position to trim the aircraft, but because the stick and rudder pressures were considered too low to require trim given the limited endurance of the planes.   

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by unreasonable

[Rail]

To add grist to the mill we must not forget that in level-flight it is airspeed (the throttle) that is chiefly responsible for lift and that the elevator simply changes the angle-of-attack to suit the required airspeed. The elevator alone does not ensure level-flight without throttle control. With regards to lift, airspeed is the deciding factor.

 

 

[Chill31]

On 5/19/2021 at 5:43 AM, PhilthySpud said:

I’m not too sure about using body weight as a routine method of trimming Great War aircraft, but I can say this: many years ago some mates and I went flying in a Cessna 172 (MTOW about 1,000 kg). When we were set up in cruise, my mate in the left seat let my other mate in the right seat - who wasn’t a pilot - have a fly. I was in the back seat and cunningly leaned forward as if to have a chat. The nose slowly dropped and my mate adjusted the trim accordingly. So I leaned back in the seat and the nose started to rise. Re-trim again. Lean forward, nose starts to drop...well, you get the idea. My mate in the right seat couldn’t work out why he couldn’t get the aircraft trimmed properly, meanwhile my other mate and I were struggling to keep straight faces.

 

On another occasion I was in the jump seat of a SAAB 340 (MTOW about 13,000 kg). I asked a question about the Flight Director and the Captain told me “We call it the ‘Flight Attendant Director’ as we can tell from the pitch demand where the Flight Attendant is in the cabin!” 

 

So, yeah, in your average Great War aircraft leaning backward or forward - if that was even possible in the often cramped cockpits of the day - would certainly be enough to affect the trim appreciably.

I've done this in the front seat of a Cessna 180.  Leaning 6 inches in any direction, I could very slightly cause the airplane to roll or pitch.  By slightly, I mean it is slight, just enough to annoy someone who is trying to fly the plane straight and level.  As a means of "controlling" the aircraft, it is ineffective.  You would not be able to fly around and land somewhere using this method.  You would also need to be pretty close to trimmed for level flight to have it be effective.  

 

In the Dr.I, there is not a single day of the week that you could trim the airplane by weight shift.  It will ALWAYS pitch up if you let go of the stick.  If the wind bumps it, it will not come back to level by weight shift. 

 

In a WWI sim, the only planes it might actually work would be in the RE8 or similar.  Neat idea, but not practical for a WWI combat flight sim.

[KAPEH]

Hi guys,

How does the fuel mixture control does work for Albatros? It seems the lever on the starboard can't be moved by <RAlt + Minus / RAlt + Equals>.

Am I right? Or it doesn't work for me only?

[J2_Bidu]

11 minutes ago, KAPEH said:

Hi guys,

How does the fuel mixture control does work for Albatros? It seems the lever on the starboard can't be moved by <RAlt + Minus / RAlt + Equals>.

Am I right? Or it doesn't work for me only?

 

Albatros has only throttle and radiator controls. No mixture. Good luck with the albie!

[KAPEH]

Hmmmm....the lever on the starboard, what is for then?....or...wait....Albatros has the throttle dulicated...right? One throttle lever on the stick another one on the starboard...right?

[zan64]

On 5/23/2021 at 12:38 PM, unreasonable said:

"Flying with the seat of your pants" simply means that a pilot can feel the motion of the aircraft through his body, which we obviously cannot, not that you use the seat of your pants to fly. You use the joystick and rudder. 

 

i flew light sport for a while and this was it, my instructor always tried to have me not look at turn and slip and instead learn by the feel whether turns were coordinated or not, and the feeling was around the behind area lol on the seat