New Book "Inside the Victories of Manfred von Richthofen" Now Available

[J2_Trupobaw]

Albatros D.III and D.Va energy retention are the problem. Semiesquiplane configuration is used for speed and climb, not sustained turn, forfeiting extra lift from lower wing to minimalise drag. For low speed sustained turn you want pure biplane, triplane, flaps. I suspect the properly modelled D.Va and 180hp H-S with 4-blade climbing prop would end up with matching sustained turn. The drag force decreases (or increases) quadratically with the speed - the slower you go, the bigger margin of horsepower is left at your disposal, so an SE configured for climbing could stay in slow turn by brute engine force. 

For the S.E.5a we have in game the problem, again, is lack of 1918 German two seaters. If Germans had recon planes even just comparable with Bristol F.III, S.E.5.a would shine at intercepting them. 

Anecdotes, we can't treat seriously. According to anecdotes Jasta 6 was running 30 planes whenever RFC encountered them. D.H.2s were able to ocassionally stand up to Albies D.II (just ask Kirmaier), but in one fight we have well documented (MvR vs Hawker) the D.II was able to stay with D.H.2 in turns and gradually make it lose altitude, despite Hawkers much greater experience as a pilot. In general, D.H.2 pilots like MC Cudden describe the matchup as hopeless. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Starling]

5 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Albatros D.III and D.Va energy retention are the problem. Semiesquiplane configuration is used for speed and climb, not sustained turn, forfeiting extra lift from lower wing to minimalise drag. For low speed sustained turn you want pure biplane, triplane, flaps. I suspect the properly modelled D.Va and 180hp H-S with 4-blade climbing prop would end up with matching sustained turn. The drag force decreases (or increases) quadratically with the speed - the slower you go, the bigger margin of horsepower is left at your disposal, so an SE configured for climbing could stay in slow turn by brute engine force. 

For the S.E.5a we have in game the problem, again, is lack of 1918 German two seaters. If Germans had recon planes even just comparable with Bristol F.III, S.E.5.a would shine at intercepting them. 

Anecdotes, we can't treat seriously. According to anecdotes Jasta 6 was running 30 planes whenever RFC encountered them. D.H.2s were able to ocassionally stand up to Albies D.II (just ask Kirmaier), but in one fight we have well documented (MvR vs Hawker) the D.II was able to stay with D.H.2 in turns and gradually make it lose altitude, despite Hawkers much greater experience as a pilot. In general, D.H.2 pilots like MC Cudden describe the matchup as hopeless. 

Agreed on the Albis and SE5a match up. Imagine how hot it would be if the turning matches were closer and they didn’t fall apart so easily.

 

Just be careful quoting the Hawker fight as an example of how the dii was a super plane that could out turn, climb, run, and gun the Dii. Id strongly suggest reading ‘Gunning for the Red Baron’ by Bennett who looks at a lot of data (he’s an aerospace engineer) and RFC records. Hawker’s engine was known be be having issues from the surviving diaries and letters to his family but he went out anyways - the engine was notorious for plug fouling and other issues - and it’s more likely that he took the fight low where the DH2 could out climb the Albi, nullifying one of MvR’s advantages (see chart below).
 

There’s a lot of sources talking about how much better the turn was in the DH2 but that didn’t matter if the Albis could attack from above with impunity. Bennett provides turn rate calculations in this book and has the DH2 turning at 100 feet vs 140 in the Dii. Again, as a BnZ advocate I’d take the Dii every time.