Jump to content

Flight Model Potential Inaccuracies List


US93_Larner
 Share

Recommended Posts

US93_Larner

(Rolling some topics covered in older threads into this one, now that we have a proper section for it): 

Although it's hard to find much on the flight characteristics of WW1 aircraft past anecdotal evidence, there are a few aspects of the WW1 Flight Models that seem to me to not add up to what seems to be the general historical consensus on how some of the early warplanes flew and handled in combat. Below is a list of my own observations / opinions - I've included references / quotes from literature on the aircraft, in-game footage, and anything else I think is relevant, and in the future I'll update this post with anything else I stumble across.

 

Personally (and with my own thoughts on current FMs aside), I think that the Flying Circus aircraft are overdue a Flight Re-Model - and, whereas I get that this will likely not be a priority for the team, it would be very nice to have some of the years-old FMs revisited and brought up to modern IL2 Sturmovik standards - particularly with brand new WW1 collector planes coming in the future! 

feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, observations, agreements, disagreements...but try to keep it generally lighthearted 😉



The following is a list of all potential FM inaccuracies within Flying Circus vols. I and II:

Fokker D.VII:
- The Fokker D.VII seems to struggle heavily at lower altitudes with energy retention when compared to the Albatros D.Va. In general, I found the Albatros to be superior in every aspect except Damage Model to the 'vanilla' D.VII...which, given the historical context of the two aircraft when compared to each other, leads me to believe that either the D.VII doesn't retain energy well enough, the Albatros retains energy too well, or a combination of both.
 

Spoiler

ZFvGM3J.png



Fokker D.VII F:
- The FC Fokker D.VII F exhibits strange stall characteristics. While testing, I was able to hold a Fokker D.VII F in a roughly 15 degree angle of attack while stalling at 50 km/h and losing altitude. The D.VII F is also able to zoom completely up to the point of stall and recover unnaturally quickly. The D.VII also exhibits these qualities, but to a lesser degree.

 

Spoiler


(Tracks for these clips to be posted soon)


Fokker Dr.I:
- Currently the Fokker Dr.I requires heavy forward stick-pressure in order to keep level. According to user Chill31, who owns and pilots a very accurate replica Dr.I, the force required to keep the nose level (although constant) is "not substantial". Note: At the time of making this statement, Chill31's Triplane was powered by a Le Rhone engine. It is now powered by an Oberusel. Chill31 also stated that, while powered by a Le Rhone, the aircraft was more tail-heavy than it would be with the Oberusel. 
 

Spoiler

5FBhBkd.png


- Currently the Fokker Dr.I attains a top speed of 160 km/h at sea level, when other sources have referenced the Dr.I achieving 170 - 180 km/h at sea level. [Sources to be added later]

Albatros D.Va:
- It is impossible to break the wings off in a power-dive, despite the Albatros Sesquiplanes (D.III, D.V, D.Va) notoriously being plagued by wing-shedding in aggressive dives (an issue that was well-reported in contemporary sources). It is possible to lose Ailerons, but while testing in QM I was able to dive the D.Va completely vertically from 10,000m, achieving a maximum speed of 308 km/h (with all mods including Lewis Gun enabled) without the wings collapsing (both ailerons and the rudder were lost in this dive). 

Spoiler

Vaa7d5x.png



PwADCbx.png



- It is possible that the Albatros D.Va is better at manoeuvring / dogfighting than its historical counterpart, as eluded to in several pilot reports. This is most easily seen within Flying Circus when comparing the Fokker D.VII, S.E.5a and Spad VII to the Albatros. Historically the Albatros was known to be more manoeuvrable than the S.E.5a and Spad VII, but several anecdotes suggest that the aircraft were far more closely matched than is seen within Flying Circus, or even that the S.E.5a was equal in a 'dogfight' to the Albatros. By comparison, the F.C. Albatros will very easily outmanoeuvre both the S.E.5a and the Spad VII. Tying in to reports of the S.E.5a versus the Albatros, several S.E.5a pilot accounts seemingly reference turn-fighting / dogfighting with Albatroses, and reference specifically avoiding manoeuvring fights with Fokker D.VIIs, opting instead to utilise "Boom and Zoom" tactics. This would imply that the D.VII was superior to the Albatros D.Va. Within Flying circus the Fokker D.VII feels generally equal to, or even worse than, the Albatros in a dogfight.

Spoiler

u7YnOQM.png

9BfrA99.png

 



Pfalz D.IIIa:
- The Pfalz D.IIIa is inferior to the Albatros D.Va in a dive, despite being historically well-known to be a superior diver to the Albatros (one feature that greatly appealed to German pilots during the Great War). It is also incapable of diving indefinitely or breaking its wings in a dive, owing to the aircraft involuntarily pitching up and exiting a high-speed dive even with full downward elevator deflection. 

 

Spoiler

FCGzCsk.png
oeqeD1E.png

 



- Similarly to the Albatros, it is possible that the Pfalz D.IIIa is overmodeled when it comes to manoeuvrability (seen again in Flying Circus when compared to the S.E.5a / Spad VII, both of which it will very easily outmanoeuvre). However, reports / experiences of S.E.5a pilots seem to vary in this regard. The Pfalz D.IIIa also seems to be able to generate energy very quickly during a dogfight. Once source indicates that the Pfalz D.IIIa was "Sluggish" when compared to the Albatros.
 

Spoiler

X3S0ylM.png

n3Cjjze.png

Odlh6YQ.png


- The Pfalz D.IIIa appears to have a highly exaggerated tolerance to G-Forces, being able to withstand over 10Gs when pulling out of a sharp dive. It also appears to be impossible to wingtip stall no matter how aggressively the stick is pulled backwards. 

Pfalz D.XII:
- The Pfalz D.XII is incapable of sustaining a steep dive as, similarly to the D.IIIa, it will involuntarily pitch up and exit a dive regardless of control input. By comparison, the D.XII was thought to be, historically, an extremely good diver, comparable to the S.E.5a and SPAD XIII. 

 

Spoiler

c6H3aE4.png

 


S.E.5a:
- The S.E.5a in Flying Circus appears to struggle with energy retention - in combat manoeuvres and 'zooming' climbs, the S.E.5a will rapidly lose energy which it will not regain without flying in a straight line. By comparison, the Flying Circus SPAD XIII is able to both zoom and manoeuvre in a dogfight while losing and regaining energy.  This lessens its effectiveness in "boom and zoom" attacks - a tactic favoured by historical S.E.5a pilots.

Some community members have previously suggested that this may be due to the S.E.5a's propeller pitch being too coarse.
 

Spoiler

hqhj0KW.png

2i5djT6.png

Qzsyrde.png

38lVlJq.png
Ayz4VKK.png


- Tying in with its loss of energy retention, the S.E.5a feels very sluggish and underwhelming in a manoeuvring dogfight. This is contrary to several pilot reports, which hailed the S.E.5a as being highly manoeuvrable. Reports seem to vary on whether the S.E.5a could match contemporary German types in manoeuvrability, suggesting that the S.E.5a was more closely matched to German aircraft such as the Albatros and Pfalz D.III than is exhibited in Flying Circus (in which any German aircraft will very easily outmanoeuvre the S.E.5a). 
 

Spoiler

grfc34v.png

4oGMbh3.png

M13dHes.png

hZMr6IQ.png

r8Rqb8b.png



Sopwith Dolphin:
- The Sopwith Dolphin was reported to have very good performance at high altitudes. By comparison, the Flying Circus Dolphin becomes exceptionally hard to manoeuvre at higher altitudes. 

Spoiler

6FpfQ8f.png


dU062vz.png

sruBuN1.png




SPAD VII 180hp:
- The 180hp SPAD VII feels, in general, completely anaemic and ineffective within Flying Circus. The aircraft bleeds off energy extremely quickly and becomes unstable in any kind of combat manoeuvres, and is slow to generate energy once levelled out. The aircraft suffers a similar energy bleed-off when attempting to use BnZ tactics, and will easily lose its altitude advantage within one or two 'zooms' against any German scout. The FC SPAD VII is highly intolerant to pulling back on the stick compared to all other FC aircraft, very quickly shaking and bleeding energy regardless of airspeed (in what appears to be an accelerated stall).

Comparing to Flying Circus, the FC SPAD XIII seems to be greatly superior in every regard to the VII, including manoeuvrability / dogfighting ability. The XIII can perform combat manoeuvres without excessively bleeding energy, and can maintain its altitude advantage while making successive BnZ attacks. This would seemingly contradict anecdotal accounts which generally regard the SPAD VII as being lighter and more manoeuvrable (albeit slower) than the XIII, and the S.E.5a. (See spoiler below):

Spoiler

1ghNP7B.png

Zxe6bLp.png

pRof85F.png

ajqiGxt.png

hZMr6IQ.png

BEZBzEr.png
rcKf02S.png

3GiDS6N.png


One suggestion to the cause of this apparent inability to retain energy in manoeuvres is that the prop pitch is too coarse - it has also been speculated by community members that the S.E.5a's prop pitch is similarly afflicted. 

Nieuport 28:
- The Nieuport 28 in Flying Circus seems to bear no resemblance to the historical aircraft in any way except visually. Historically understood to be a powerful and highly manoeuvrable rotary aircraft, the Flying Circus Nieuport 28 is perhaps the least manoeuvrable aircraft in Flying Circus in terms of a dogfight. It also struggles to retain its energy and fight in the vertical / 'energy fight'. For comparison, it is completely outclassed by the Albatros D.Va / Pfalz D.IIIa in a dogfight, despite accounts suggesting that the Nieuport 28 was superior to both aircraft in a dogfight. It is also easily out-manoeuvred by the SPAD XIII, which it was thought to be greatly superior to in manoeuvrability. 
 

Spoiler

02uAPfX.png

QYyiREL.png



 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • US93_Larner changed the title to Flight Model Inaccuracies...?
J99_Sizzlorr

You forgot the Fokker Dr.I. It is currently too slow and needs too much stick pressure to get it to fly level.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

You forgot the Fokker Dr.I. It is currently too slow and needs too much stick pressure to get it to fly level.


Ah, yes - I'll add that in.  Do you have the figures / sources for what the Dr.I's top airspeed should be? Regarding stick pressure, @Chill31mentioned that his Dr.I requires a good deal of forward-stick to keep it level - I'm inclined to believe him! 😛 

He'll know better than any of us whether or not the forward-stick pressure is too pronounced in FC...! 

Edited by US93_Larner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
7 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Ah, yes - I'll add that in.  Do you have the figures / sources for what the Dr.I's top airspeed should be? Regarding stick pressure, @Chill31mentioned that his Dr.I requires a good deal of forward-stick to keep it level - I'm inclined to believe him! 😛 

He'll know better than any of us whether or not the forward-stick pressure is too pronounced in FC...! 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • US93_Larner changed the title to Flight Model Potential Inaccuracies List
US93_Larner
Just now, J99_Sizzlorr said:

You forgot to mention that it is too slow... ;)


No I didn't - just currently looking for the right figures to put in the post 😄 I'll update it again as soon as I find them. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr

About the Albatros:

 

In Kurt Jentsch's "Als Jagdflieger im Feuer" he states diving down almost vertically with the Albatros planes they flew at the time, just not more until the lower wing began to flutter and buckle, since the lower wing would then break soon after - which they found out the hard way. This also states a speed of at least 300 km/h, and maybe more before that fluttering happened.
 

 

About the Camel:

 

Currently its engine revs higher than 1450rpm without problems with the engine. In it's manual it is stated that beyond 1450rpm there is a risk of engine damage.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk

Most early FMs were made more than 10 years ago by devs who don't work in current staff.  They can't be fixed like  Albatros DVa  they should be made again by current more experienced engineers. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
4 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

About the Albatros:

 

In Kurt Jentsch's "Als Jagdflieger im Feuer" he states diving down almost vertically with the Albatros planes they flew at the time, just not more until the lower wing began to flutter and buckle, since the lower wing would then break soon after - which they found out the hard way. This also states a speed of at least 300 km/h, and maybe more before that fluttering happened.
 

 

About the Camel:

 

Currently its engine revs higher than 1450rpm without problems with the engine. In it's manual it is stated that beyond 1450rpm there is a risk of engine damage.


300 Km/h in a dive for an alb sounds like a lot - that's getting close to SPAD dive speed! I think on a "normal" Alb (AKA not loaded up with every weight-adding mod and spawned in at 10,000 m for as long a dive as possible)  I've only managed about 270-280 km/h in a vertical power-dive...but the engine will over-rev pretty quickly (too quickly...?).  I saw one pilot account (can't remember which pilot offhand) that referenced that S.E's could dive at 250 mph (400 km/h), but that figure is noticeably higher than other accounts. Escadrille Lafayette C.O. Georges Thenault gives the same max dive speed for the Spad VII, but, again, 400 km/h is quite a bit higher than other references. 

...I'd think that either all three were mistaken, or they were a lot ballsier than their fellow pilots!

There seem to be a couple planes that are potentially not performing "right" in regard to RPMs - apart from Camel, both SPAD VIIs seemingly produce more RPM than sources state, and S.E.5a doesn't produce enough. I want to have a look at all FC planes and then maybe do a separate post about that. 

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Most early FMs were made more than 10 years ago by devs who don't work in current staff.  They can't be fixed like  Albatros DVa  they should be made again by current more experienced engineers. 


Yeah, totally agree with this - I think FC both needs and deserves to evolve past RoF! Especially once the new collector planes are introduced. The RoF FMs are showing their age a bit...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 2:06 AM, US93_Larner said:

- The FC Fokker D.VII F exhibits strange stall characteristics. While testing, I was able to hold a Fokker D.VII F in a roughly 15 degree angle of attack while stalling at 50 km/h and losing altitude. The D.VII F is also able to zoom completely up to the point of stall and recover unnaturally quickly. This is the only aircraft in Flying Circus to exhibit these qualities. 

From my experience so far, I don't see anything too wrong with this behavior.  My instructor once held the 150 in a stall for probably about a minute and it just descended with its' nose a little ways above the horizon.  However, it required full right rudder which still wasn't enough to stop it from slowly turning to the left.  Recovery from power on stalls just involves lowering the nose to level and as soon as the angle of attack is reduced, the airplane starts flying again.  I think the difference between the DVII and other airplanes is that it has a much better wing design so it is less prone to the airflow separating from the wing when it is held in a stall.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
4 hours ago, Miners said:

From my experience so far, I don't see anything too wrong with this behavior.  My instructor once held the 150 in a stall for probably about a minute and it just descended with its' nose a little ways above the horizon.  However, it required full right rudder which still wasn't enough to stop it from slowly turning to the left.  Recovery from power on stalls just involves lowering the nose to level and as soon as the angle of attack is reduced, the airplane starts flying again.  I think the difference between the DVII and other airplanes is that it has a much better wing design so it is less prone to the airflow separating from the wing when it is held in a stall.


That could be it - it just felt funny that I could do this stuff at between 40-60 km/h while being pretty much in control of the plane...! The only time I crashed doing this stuff was when I wasn't watching the altimeter and ended up sinking into the ground. The 2nd video was also all with a damaged engine (running full alt throttle continually) 

Edited by US93_Larner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
On 10/14/2021 at 5:23 PM, US93_Larner said:


300 Km/h in a dive for an alb sounds like a lot - that's getting close to SPAD dive speed! I think on a "normal" Alb (AKA not loaded up with every weight-adding mod and spawned in at 10,000 m for as long a dive as possible)  I've only managed about 270-280 km/h in a vertical power-dive...but the engine will over-rev pretty quickly (too quickly...?).  I saw one pilot account (can't remember which pilot offhand) that referenced that S.E's could dive at 250 mph (400 km/h), but that figure is noticeably higher than other accounts. Escadrille Lafayette C.O. Georges Thenault gives the same max dive speed for the Spad VII, but, again, 400 km/h is quite a bit higher than other references. 

...I'd think that either all three were mistaken, or they were a lot ballsier than their fellow pilots!

There seem to be a couple planes that are potentially not performing "right" in regard to RPMs - apart from Camel, both SPAD VIIs seemingly produce more RPM than sources state, and S.E.5a doesn't produce enough. I want to have a look at all FC planes and then maybe do a separate post about that. 

 

I am not too sure as i also find quotes about the Albatros D.III diving as fast as Spad V.IIs. 

 

Albert Deullin in his essay on Fighter Tactics:

 

Quote

The 180hp Spad will outfly the 160hp Albatros both in level and in a dive at a modest angle with the motor on, but in a steep dive the Albatros with its heavy motor will go at least as fast as any other machine.

 

Quote

Lt Arthur Gould Lee wrote about the Albatros D.V that after he dived his Camel at 140 mph that the Albatros dives fast too and they weren't able to catch up with them.

 

There are more quotes on fast diving Albatroses from various sources.

 

Childlaw Roberts an S.E.5 pilot said: 

 

Quote

Compared to the Albatros the S.E.5 might have been slightly faster.

 

Another quote from a Camel pilot: 

Quote

Our Camels were excellent fighting planes. Although they were slower in climb and
speed than the Albatros Scouts, they could outmanoeuvre the heavy-engined German
planes on a turn. We seldom had the initiative in a scrap but we very quickly took it
over once the scrap began.

 

Are they all wrong? I doubt it.

 

Also to your account from von Hippel who lost his lower wing in a dive but still could land the plane. He was flying an Albatros D.V not a D.Va which had reeinforced wings. He was able to land the plane without his lower wing because he still could control the ailerons of his plane because the D.V had the cables run through the upper wing and not the lower wing as it was the case with the Albatros D.Va.

 

I think that you have to add that the FC Albatros D.Va is currently too slow. It's performance data stems from a captured Albatros D.V with a Mercedes D.III engine while all Entente plane data comes from prototypes which mostly performed better than what was delivered to the frontlines.

 

I also read about the Spad 13 that it had a gliding angle of a brick. Meaning it wasn't able to glide much without it's engine running and therfore had to be landed with a relative high speed because it was so heavy and had such thin wingprofile. Which is not the case for our Spad 13 in FC. It can glide just fine.

 

I also read about the Camel that it couldn't outrun anything the germans had at the time. When flying it and turning it to one side you needed a  considerable amount of rudder input to fight the engine torque to prevent it to go nose up in right and nose down in left turns. I feel in FC there is no conciderable amount of rudder input needed in the Camels turns. The Camel was also very tail heavy and it couldn't be flown hands off. Otherwise the nose would rise immediately. And you had to constantly push the stick forward to maintin level flight. Unlike the Dr.I which has this characteristic in  FC but was a joy to fly after you had learned the operation of the rotary engine.

 

 

 

 

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sizzlor’s question about the camel, I’ve wondered about the level flight characteristics of the camel in fc as it seems to nose-down when hands off, yet I would assume it would nose-up when hands-off as it was an unstable plane that could turn really well. The turning rate would I assume come with a tendency to nose-up due to lift it generates.

 

Though I don’t understand sizzlors ending comment because real remakes of the Dr.1 exhibit heavy nose-up tendency requiring stick forward for level flight. Maybe I misunderstood something?

 

I can also see how a very heavy DV or DVa could get to a similar or higher top dive speed due to its weight, but the trade off here is it shouldn’t be nearly as maneuverable as it is in FC. As it stands (if wing shedding DM was fixed) the Alb would be a top fighter. Better than vanilla d7. Which doesn’t make much sense to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
2 hours ago, US93_Low said:

To sizzlor’s question about the camel, I’ve wondered about the level flight characteristics of the camel in fc as it seems to nose-down when hands off, yet I would assume it would nose-up when hands-off as it was an unstable plane that could turn really well. The turning rate would I assume come with a tendency to nose-up due to lift it generates.

 

Though I don’t understand sizzlors ending comment because real remakes of the Dr.1 exhibit heavy nose-up tendency requiring stick forward for level flight. Maybe I misunderstood something?

 

I can also see how a very heavy DV or DVa could get to a similar or higher top dive speed due to its weight, but the trade off here is it shouldn’t be nearly as maneuverable as it is in FC. As it stands (if wing shedding DM was fixed) the Alb would be a top fighter. Better than vanilla d7. Which doesn’t make much sense to me

Yeah because vanilla D.VII doesn't make any sense at all.

 

And you have to read my comments as addition to what Larner already has written.

 

Regarding the Dr.I I was referring to a quote I haven't posted yet from a german Dr.I pilot and to Chill's and Achim Engels comments and about the nose up tendency of the Dr.I.

The Dr.I also wants to put it's nose up but not to the degree we have ingame right now. You basically have to poush your stick half way forward to achieve level flight in FC right now. The elevator therefore drags a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I’m aware it’s a significant amount of forward stick but I thought chill confirmed it? Not trying to be argumentative I just thought that one aspect was actually an agreed upon accurate modeling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
39 minutes ago, US93_Low said:

Yeah I’m aware it’s a significant amount of forward stick but I thought chill confirmed it? Not trying to be argumentative I just thought that one aspect was actually an agreed upon accurate modeling 

Nope Chill said his is tail heavy but his Le Rhone engine also was 50 lbs lighter than the Oberursel. I think he now has the Ur.II installed.

 

Quote

The Dr.I is so light and sensitive on the elevator control, the force isn't substantial, but it must be constantly applied.

 

As far as i know the groundcrew could adjust the horizontal stabilizer. There was an "Anstellwinkel" and you could vary it's degree.

80074557_605677133307045_9152482716871032832_n.jpg

DRIelevator.jpg

 

A little side by side comparision. Spot the difference.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
19 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I also read about the Spad 13 that it had a gliding angle of a brick. Meaning it wasn't able to glide much without it's engine running and therfore had to be landed with a relative high speed because it was so heavy and had such thin wingprofile. Which is not the case for our Spad 13 in FC. It can glide just fine.

The SPAD XIII is not a heavy plane. In fact, on the contrary. If it had a terrible gliding angle, this would mean it had more drag than other aircraft. And more drag at modest speeds would be resulting in tremendous drag differences in dives. I don‘t think this tale holds much water as the consequence of it is against everything we know about that plane. The SPAD is like the Bf109 of its time: A big engine with a small biplane attached to it.

 

19 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I also read about the Camel that it couldn't outrun anything the germans had at the time.

Here, I‘d be also careful about the context. The often quoted book passage about the Alb „cutting the air faster“ was most certainly not a steep dive, but a shallow one. The DVa is considerably heavier than the Camel, and in shallow dives this pays dividends. But in steep dives, both aircraft reach Vne quickly and I‘d much rather have a Camel to test those boundaries than the rotten construction of an Alb, where high speed is just asking for the lower wings twisting and breaking off. Having the lower attachment of the V-strut behind the aerodynamic center on thw wing is just not the way to do it.

 

So yes, it would be very much expected that the Alb could slightly outpace the Camel in a run; but in level flight, I wouldn‘t be so sure. And I would be rather certain that the Germans were well taking advantage of whatever they had.

 

Regarding the nose up moment in the Camel: The fuel tank is behing the pilot and the amount of fuel loaded makes the difference of a tail heavy, unstable (in pitch) plane and a plane neutral in control. This is reflected in FC quiet well.

 

What can be said about our dear Camel is that the ailerons are far too effective. (This applies to other planes as well.) They should act way more as an „opposite rudder“ than roll. Also, our FC Camel (and any other Camel in any sim) is far too stable in yaw. If you took the feet of the pedals, you should expect the Camel wanting to go sideways at an obscene angle. Same as a Dr.I.

 

10 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

A little side by side comparision. Spot the difference.

It would be interesting to know the incidence of the tail stabylo in FC/RoF and the one used by Chill on his Dr.I. If I remember correctly, there was some conflicting data on what was used back then.

 

But generally in this sim, it is my impression that little control deflection give too small of a reaction and larger deflections have too much effect.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
38 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The SPAD XIII is not a heavy plane. In fact, on the contrary. If it had a terrible gliding angle, this would mean it had more drag than other aircraft. And more drag at modest speeds would be resulting in tremendous drag differences in dives. I don‘t think this tale holds much water as the consequence of it is against everything we know about that plane. The SPAD is like the Bf109 of its time: A big engine with a small biplane attached to it.

 

Well that is what I read about it. As far as I know you can fly with anything if you have enough thrust and lift. But when the thrust is missing the Spad wasn't the best glider...Compared to the N28 it was a heavier aircraft.

Spad XIII takeoff weight:856.5 kg
N28 takeoff weight: 740 kg

Albatros D.Va takeoff weight: 915 kg

 

Quote

The Flying Brick
Maj Harold E. Hartney, Canadian-born commander of the 27th Aero Sqn wrote:"An Englishman who flew one of the SPADs on our aerodrome said, "The thing flies like a bloody brick", you know. That was our opinion, too, and it remained with us through to the end of the war." 

The flying brick sobriquet referred to the fact that the SPAD's greater weight and thinner wing cross section gave it higher wing loading than that of the light and docile N28. This in turn meant that the fighter had a steeper glide angle, which normally required the engine to be running at high speed in order for the pilot to land the SPAD XIII safely.

 

 

Charles R. D'Olive of 93rd Aero Sqn:

Quote

The SPADs were wonderful aeroplanes after you learned how to fly them. For the novice, they had the gliding angle and stability of a brick. After you learned how to fly them you could hang them on a tight turn pretty nice. You had to fly them with the engine.

 

Quote

Here, I‘d be also careful about the context. The often quoted book passage about the Alb „cutting the air faster“ was most certainly not a steep dive, but a shallow one. The DVa is considerably heavier than the Camel, and in shallow dives this pays dividends. But in steep dives, both aircraft reach Vne quickly and I‘d much rather have a Camel to test those boundaries than the rotten construction of an Alb, where high speed is just asking for the lower wings twisting and breaking off. Having the lower attachment of the V-strut behind the aerodynamic center on thw wing is just not the way to do it.

That is quite the contrary what I read about. The Spad also lighter than the Albatros could outpace them in shallow dives but in steep dives both were equally fast. See my quote about the Spad V.II 180hp vs Albatros D.III So I don't understand how the weight of the aircraft plays a role in shallow and not in steep dives.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
On 10/15/2021 at 4:12 PM, US93_Larner said:


That could be it - it just felt funny that I could do this stuff at between 40-60 km/h while being pretty much in control of the plane...! The only time I crashed doing this stuff was when I wasn't watching the altimeter and ended up sinking into the ground. The 2nd video was also all with a damaged engine (running full alt throttle continually) 

 

You can watch Mikael Carlson doing a slow level pass in this video at about 6:50 onwards - it really was good at that sort of flight. It was not fast (preF) but exceptionally easy to fly.

 

Spoiler

 

  

The Camel nose down tendency - even with full fuel tank - is strange: the Spitfires in GB have the same problem. Something to do with the centre of gravity and centre of lift being very slightly misaligned? This has been pointed out in the GB section dozens of times but there seems to be no urge to fix it. Possibly the devs experimented with this and created some worse problem?  In contrast the Dr.1 is more plausible, although more uncomfortable to fly down low! It will fly level hands off - but only cruising at altitude. 

 

The stand out "wrong" planes in the FC set currently, IMHO, are the Albatros and N.28. The Alb probably is too slow, but it handles far too well especially in roll. Pilots flying modern replicas all say it is a pig. Also the old adverse yaw we used to have was smoothed out - which may be OK for the GB planes but makes some of the FC crates far too easy to turn without rudder. The precession in the rotaries, OTOH, seems to be about right.  

 

Just now, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well that is what I read about it. As far as I know you can fly with anything if you have enough thrust and lift. But when the thrust is missing the Spad wasn't the best glider...

 

 

 

Charles R. D'Olive of 93rd Aero Sqn:

 

That is quite the contrary I what I read about. The Spad also lighter than the Albatros could outpace them in shallow dives but in steep dives both were equally fast.

 

The trouble with these anecdotes is that they are comparing the SPAD to the Camel or N.28, not to the Albatros. If you had been used to one of the light rotaries, you would have noticed the need to keep a higher speed and steeper glide path on approach - but this applies to the Albatros too, which had a higher wing loading than the SPAD.  Both can be easily landed with the engine off. 

 

1540767584_TechSpecsbasic.thumb.JPG.15b803e64513564904bc5abc10a50d20.JPG 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The trouble with these anecdotes is that they are comparing the SPAD to the Camel or N.28, not to the Albatros. If you had been used to one of the light rotaries, you would have noticed the need to keep a higher speed and steeper glide path on approach - but this applies to the Albatros too, which had a higher wing loading than the SPAD.  Both can be easily landed with the engine off. 

 

 

I am under the impression that the Albatros had a thicker wing profile than the Spad XIII. That would surely help the glide angle wouldn't it?

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I am under the impression that the Albatros had a thicker wing profile than the Spad XIII. That would surely help the glide angle wouldn't it?

 

It might have done, other things being equal, but they were not.  My point is that your historical quotes shed no light on this at all - the quotes were not about SPAD vs Albatros,   but SPAD vs other entente types, especially light rotaries.

 

I also wonder who ever lands an aircraft with the engine running "at high speed"? More probably what was meant was that power would not be turned off completely, as it often was in landing the rotaries, but left ticking over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

It might have done, other things being equal, but they were not.  My point is that your historical quotes shed no light on this at all - the quotes were not about SPAD vs Albatros,   but SPAD vs other entente types, especially light rotaries.

 

I also wonder who ever lands an aircraft with the engine running "at high speed"? More probably what was meant was that power would not be turned off completely, as it often was in landing the rotaries, but left ticking over. 

I know that and I am not comparing the Spads glide angle with the Albatros glide angle. Don't know where you got that from. I am just saying what other peoples have said that flew that thing. Even compared to the N28 or the Camel the Spad XIII glides just fine in FC. There is no difference but there should be one according to those anecdotes. The Albatros just got mixed in when talking about dive speeds...

 

Quote

I also read about the Spad 13 that it had a gliding angle of a brick. Meaning it wasn't able to glide much without it's engine running and therfore had to be landed with a relative high speed because it was so heavy and had such thin wingprofile. Which is not the case for our Spad 13 in FC. It can glide just fine.

This was my original comment about the Spad XIII

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

Of course it can glide just fine: why not? It is an aeroplane not an actual brick.

 

Turn the engine off and hold altitude and the SPAD starts to lose lift (ie altitude) at about 105kph - the Camel at about 80kph. (Both with minimum fuel, on a quick test). If someone was used to a Camel they would notice a significant difference in the speed required to hold a particular glide angle, but I think you are taking these anecdotes too literally. The speed required to hold a particular glide angle is also noticeably different in the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr

Try the Nieupprt 28 then...

Also i can land the Spad XIII without the engine just fine. According to those anecdotes they could not initially do that.

 

Quote

 but I think you are taking these anecdotes too literally.

Dang I thought this thread is all about that.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

But when the thrust is missing the Spad wasn't the best glider...Compared to the N28 it was a heavier aircraft.

Actually, weight doesn‘t result in a worse glide angle, it results in higher flight speed. But since biplanes in general bring to the table everything that makes for a bad glider (they look different, for good reason) I would assume a SPAD landing just where you cut the power. Unless you are very high. Hence, I would only think the Fokker Parasol be considerably better as glider.

 

But I can imagine that people back then took good slow flying qualities for good gliding performance.

 

But wing loading differs a mere 10% between the N28 and the SPAD. I wouldn‘t read much into that.

 

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The Spad also lighter than the Albatros could outpace them in shallow dives but in steep dives both were equally fast.

This would indicate the SPAD being considerably less draggy. As induced drag is, if at all, probably higher on the SPAD than on the sesquiplane, it should outpace the Alb in all cases of diving. Especially in steep dives, where Vne of the SPAD quiet certainly is is much higher than the Alb‘s. I have yet to read of an account of someone flying an Alb and going down vertically after a SPAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr

Albert Deullin in his essay on Fighter Tactics:

The 180hp Spad will outfly the 160hp Albatros both in level and in a dive at a modest angle with the motor on, but in a steep dive the Albatros with its heavy motor will go at least as fast as any other machine.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX

Given the Alb will much likely will fall apart before the SPAD, this is hardly relevant. Also, the Alb is a bigger aircraft with a larger frontal plane. That will put on the brakes in a way no heavy engine will offset. Same as with the P47.

 

Actually, I don‘t think all the (comparable) planes differ much in speed during steep dives, but they surely differ in when they fall apart.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
On 10/14/2021 at 3:45 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

In Kurt Jentsch's "Als Jagdflieger im Feuer" he states diving down almost vertically with the Albatros planes they flew at the time, just not more until the lower wing began to flutter and buckle, since the lower wing would then break soon after - which they found out the hard way. This also states a speed of at least 300 km/h, and maybe more before that fluttering happened.
 

 

Of course it is relevant if dive speeds differ or not at least to the point when one aircraft falls apart.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Nope Chill said his is tail heavy but his Le Rhone engine also was 50 lbs lighter than the Oberursel. I think he now has the Ur.II installed.

 

 

As far as i know the groundcrew could adjust the horizontal stabilizer. There was an "Anstellwinkel" and you could vary it's degree.

80074557_605677133307045_9152482716871032832_n.jpg

DRIelevator.jpg

 

A little side by side comparision. Spot the difference.


Ah I see. Interesting 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

Interestingly the FC Alb will not fall apart - at least in my quick tests it reaches about 280kph easily and then will hardly go any faster (0G dive from 5,000m, power at idle). It might if you dived at full power, but then your engine is toast.  The SPAD XIII will go upto about 360 kph and then start to break.  Would have to do more systematic testing to firm up the comparison, especially if you want to measure the acceleration as well as the top speed, which I cannot do ATM, G940 throttle being broken after a decade of service... :( 

 

Anyway, point being that qualitative discussion of FMs is all very well, but if you want any action you have to do quantitative tests at some point: even then without a reference it is hard to get the devs to admit that there is a clear error outside the range of plausible interpretations. 

 

 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Interestingly the FC Alb will not fall apart - at least in my quick tests it reaches about 280kph easily and then will hardly go any faster (0G dive from 5,000m, power at idle). It might if you dived at full power, but then your engine is toast.  The SPAD XIII will go upto about 360 kph and then start to break.  Would have to do more systematic testing to firm up the comparison, especially if you want to measure the acceleration as well as the top speed, which I cannot do ATM, G940 throttle being broken after a decade of service... :( 

 

Anyway, point being that qualitative discussion of FMs is all very well, but if you want any action you have to do quantitative tests at some point: even then without a reference it is hard to get the devs to admit that there is a clear error outside the range of plausible interpretations. 

 

 

 

   

Yeah the lower wing will not start to flutter or twist on the Albatros in a dive. So I don't think that is wrong per se as the OP points out that the Albatros can dive up to 308km/h. I think it was possible back then. When the flutter started they pulled out of their dives and the flutter started somewhere beyond 300 km/h.

About the Spad XIII my point was that her glide angle compared to the N28 was that of a brick. That indicated to me higher stall speeds and maybe more drag for the SPAD then for the N28. But the difference between both during landing is not really noticable.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

You can watch Mikael Carlson doing a slow level pass in this video at about 6:50 onwards - it really was good at that sort of flight. It was not fast (preF) but exceptionally easy to fly.


...Well, it's a fair cop.  You can definitely hold the nose higher in FC than in that video...but chances are that no sane man would risk doing that in reality, and I do have to admit that the D.VII's characteristics in that video were reminiscent of the FC 'helicoptering'. 

 

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The stand out "wrong" planes in the FC set currently, IMHO, are the Albatros and N.28. The Alb probably is too slow, but it handles far too well especially in roll. Pilots flying modern replicas all say it is a pig. Also the old adverse yaw we used to have was smoothed out - which may be OK for the GB planes but makes some of the FC crates far too easy to turn without rudder. The precession in the rotaries, OTOH, seems to be about right.  

 


Agreed on both here. Albatros / Pfalz III FMs feel like they're from a completely different game IMO - they feel totally 'simplified' compared to other FC planes. The N28 FM just feels like a rather uneducated guess, if I'm totally honest. 

 

On 10/19/2021 at 8:51 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I am not too sure as i also find quotes about the Albatros D.III diving as fast as Spad V.IIs. 


Not saying it's impossible, but it seems strange to me that, if both were equally capable in a "power-dive", within the history books one would consistently be lauded as a superior diver and the other should be frequently condemned as an inferior diver...

The same book that references the SPAD XIII's 'brick-like' gliding qualities also touches on its superior dive - comparing it to "even" the D.VII F, implying that the F was one of the more capable German divers (which I think absolutely rings true in FC, at least):
 

Spoiler

nMKisSr.png

37Dr7QU.png


Another Quote from Charles R. D'Olive touches on the diving characteristics here: 

52QTdtn.png


Re: Albatros top speed - I've seen the D.Va's top speed referenced before as 183 km/h - which AFAIK is unattainable at sea level by the current in-game D.Va. That being said, this was in reference to a D.IIIaü-powered Albatros. Jason's directly mentioned that D.IIIaüs are in the works before on Stormbirds - so we can hope for that in the future! 

Re: The "Flying Brick" - I can't really speak on the XIII's gliding ability VS other aircraft in FC without doing some proper testing. I've also read that it was a handful to glide. 

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX
8 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Re: Albatros top speed - I've seen the D.Va's top speed referenced before as 183 km/h - which AFAIK is unattainable at sea level by the current in-game D.Va. That being said, this was in reference to a D.IIIaü-powered Albatros.

It is unlikely that the planes with so-called „overcompressed“ engines achieve their top speed at sea level, but more likely so around 1900 meters or so.

 

Edit: altitude typo

Edited by ZachariasX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
9 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Not saying it's impossible, but it seems strange to me that, if both were equally capable in a "power-dive", within the history books one would consistently be lauded as a superior diver and the other should be frequently condemned as an inferior diver...

I am not saying the Albatros should be a better diver than the Spad. The Spad is more robust and has the upper hand in shallow dives and in top speed but in steep dives the difference between a Spad and an Albatros probably shouldn't be that obvious. Of course the Spad should be able to keep up the dive for longer than the Albatros.

 

The thing is we can't go around and cherry pick some pilot accounts that fit our opinion on how those planes flew. We either have to look into the whole picture and look at everything we can find even if we are doubtful at first and even if it doesn't fit our unqualified opinions or just leave it to the developers. Some accounts may contradict each other at the first glance but if we look more in detail we may get a little bit closer to the actual truth. But we have to be open minded and not discard some accounts from the get go and only bring those up that fit our opinion. There might be a bit of truth in all of them.

 

Other things might be not achieveable at all because of I dare to say it engine limitations. Like the Albatros lower wing begining to flutter or the fabric of the Nieuport 28 wing to be teared off in a dive for example.

 

But when we want random parachute failure rates then we should also want random engine failures and random synchronizer failures as well as random engine fires and gun stoppages because of faulty amunition. Again we can not go around the literature and cherry pick things we like to have and leave the things we don't like aside. Then IL2 Flying Circus will not be a better product closer to the historical truth. Also I doubt it would be a fun sim if it was historicaly accurate.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J99_Sizzlorr
17 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The stand out "wrong" planes in the FC set currently, IMHO, are the Albatros and N.28. The Alb probably is too slow, but it handles far too well especially in roll. Pilots flying modern replicas all say it is a pig. Also the old adverse yaw we used to have was smoothed out - which may be OK for the GB planes but makes some of the FC crates far too easy to turn without rudder. The precession in the rotaries, OTOH, seems to be about right. 

I would add the Fokker Dr.I and the Sopwith Camel to that list.

On 10/13/2021 at 11:06 AM, US93_Larner said:

Fokker D.VII:
- The Fokker D.VII seems to struggle heavily at lower altitudes with energy retention when compared to the Albatros D.Va. In general, I found the Albatros to be superior in every aspect except Damage Model to the 'vanilla' D.VII...which, given the historical context of the two aircraft when compared to each other, leads me to believe that either the D.VII doesn't retain energy well enough, the Albatros retains energy too well, or a combination of both.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

ZFvGM3J.png

 

I would say for a Fokker D.VII with a Mercedes D.IIIaü this should be the case. It should struggle at lower altitudes but should gain performance at higher altitudes.

 

Quote

We were astounded at what Fokker had been able to wring out of the long-outdated Mercedes engine. The new biplane was not as manouverable as our triplanes but it was somewhat speedier. It was a little slow climbing at low altitude, but it climbed better at high altitude, as we had installed the high-compression engines that were designed for high altitude.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner
2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I am not saying the Albatros should be a better diver than the Spad. The Spad is more robust and has the upper hand in shallow dives and in top speed but in steep dives the difference between a Spad and an Albatros probably shouldn't be that obvious. Of course the Spad should be able to keep up the dive for longer than the Albatros.


I'm not saying that you're saying that the Alb should be a better diver than a Spad 😉 and I actually think that you would be able to dive an Alb in FC as hard as the anecdotes you posted suggest - if the Alb was capable of exceeding 280-290 km/h - and it would also be able to be "broken up" if it could. Funnily, the D.VII in FC sounds more reminiscent of the alb anecdotes...it can actually accelerate faster than a SPAD in a steep dive, but will break up before the SPAD's top speed. From what I've read as well, the Alb seemed to favour running in a steep dive and was successful at doing so pretty much until SPADs / S.E's started showing up. 

Edit: Me and Baer are currently doing some tests of FC flight models and trying to collect data to compare what we know about the real planes to how the FMs perform atm - I'll do some dive tests too. I expect we'll post any substantial findings in another thread. 

 

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The thing is we can't go around and cherry pick some pilot accounts that fit our opinion on how those planes flew.


...I hope you don't think that's what I've been doing...

Edited by US93_Larner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner

Some more anecdotes on the Spad VII: 

From Squadron / Signal Publications, Aircraft No. 93, "SPAD Fighters in Action"

eeNrbis.png


IAz6c0U.png



And, a very valuable anecdote imo, a modern report from a pilot that flew several WW1 aircraft in 'Combat mode', including the Spad VII (Thanks to US28_Baer for digging this one up): 

weWKZUR.png

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...