Flying Circus is back! Spread the word!

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

With the D.IIIaü engine the D.Va takes a big jump in climb performance to 4000 m, essentially beating all Entente scouts bar the 220 hp SPAD S.XIII which it matches in climb time to this altitude. For the SPAD S.XIII 220 hp I am in agreement with the numbers (speed and climb time) posted by @US103_Baer here. About the turn times for the D.Va these will of course improve as well with the D.IIIaü engine, going from around 20.5 to 24.5 deg /s at 6000 ft. So when looking at the numbers I already posted here comparing the D.Va to the Nieuport 28, this means that the D.Va would now beat the N28 at this altitude in turn performance.

 

That is really interesting and pretty much confirms what I assumed about both the Albatros D.Va and Nieuport 28.

 

• In 1917/1918 the Nieuport 28 is one of the worst turning of all rotary scouts, worse than the Nieuport 17 and Hanriot HD.1, about on par with the Fokker D.VIII, but still a better turner than all the in-lines scouts, except maybe the Sopwith Dolphin. The D8, Dolphin and N28 are likely about as close in overall handling as it gets, with marginal differences in speed (Dolphin best), climb (D8 best) and instability/turn (N28 best). 
   
• The Albatros D.Va, the entire Albatros series, Pfalz D.IIIa, Halberstadt D.II, Halberstadt CL.II and Roland CIIa have wrong CLmax calculations for their semi-thick airfoils, which is giving them that characteristic floaty "on rails" feeling, exaggerated rate of turn and allows them to prophang far better than they should be able to, something we know was only the case with the Fokker D.VII. They should turn worse, stall sharper and simply be faster and climb better across the board. Heck we might even see an accurate Albatros D.II vs. Airco DH.2 happen one day if this were to change.
  
  Having the 200hp Albatros D.Va completely outperform the N28 at 2000m is the cherry on top: the Albatros was designed to be relatively fast, climb hard and (turn)fight at altitude -- not to be a physics-defying UFO at sea level.
   

Edited December 9, 2022 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Stalling in german tractor scouts! Thas a new ?,  how it would change the entire gameplay. No more pulling as far it's gets and prop hang like mad. I seeing many casualties, ours Jastas would need to practice a lot ? 
 I agree  with you ,old germans scouts FMs are very unrealistic to the point i thouht it were done not to be realistic as it gets but as easy as it gets for new players to start . It can't be the case, it's  just poor research job and not taking community concerns to look at old FMs thoroughly, but just produce new planes and sell , finly make things even worse by quick "fixing" (december 2014 patch) it in the end. Which they admitted was wrong.

Edited December 9, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Stalling in german tractor scouts! Thas a new ?,  how it would change the entire gameplay. No more pulling as far it's gets and prop hang like mad. I seeing many casualties, ours Jastas would need to practice a lot ? 
 I agree  with you ,old germans scouts FMs are very unrealistic to the point i thouht it were done not to be realistic as it gets but as easy as it gets for new players to start . It can't be the case, it's  just poor research job and not taking community concerns to look at old FMs thoroughly, but just produce new planes and sell , finly make things even worse by quick "fixing" (december 2014 patch) it in the end. Which they admitted was wrong.

 

They would just need to climb a lot more, which the Germans certainly did do. The early S.E.5a (sadly missing from the roster) could not even climb up to the Albatros D.III/D.Va. Then in 1918 onwards there's the Fokkers to seriously even out the playing field and get that "new player ride". The D.VII even turned Göring into an ace. Here we just need the 200hp D.VII to bridge the gap between May and the late summer when the F was available in numbers along with a limited number of Siemens-Schuckert.

[Holtzauge]

@SYN_Vander: Thanks for the link to the excel spreadsheet. Looks like an interesting compilation of pilot opinions on how the different scouts compared. Good to have as a reference in conjunction to simulation results!

 

@=IRFC=Hellbender: Yes, the N28 is the worst turning rotary scout (bar the Fokker D.VIII monoplane). But as you say it does pretty well compared to the in-lines (at least in my simulations). And as I outlined before in an earlier post, I think it should, because it has both a good power loading and low span loading. And as both you and @1PL-Husar-1Esk point out, there is no reason to believe that the Albatros should have an advantage when it comes to slow speed handling such as prop hanging: This is not necessarily connect this to the Clmax though, but rather to a not too abrupt loss of lift post stall, which aerodynamically may occur on both both thin and thick airfoils but AFAIK was a property connected to the thick winged Fokkers in WW1. In fact this is exactly what Mikael Carlson says about the Dr.I (and I believe @Chill31 has said as well?): It does not have a distinct stall limit but kind of “mushes” at high aoa which is in contrast to the thin winged and sharp nosed Plafz D.VIII which he said required to be watched when it comes to stall properties.

 

Regarding the speed of the Albatros D.Va with the aü engine, in my simulation I assume 185 hp constant from SL up to a full throttle height (FTH) of 1800 m which means the top speed is reached at this altitude and is around 190 km/h TAS (around 173 Km/h IAS) so still quite a lot below the Entente scouts but I would assume still quite a bit better that you see in-game today with the D.IIIa 180 hp engine?

[ST_Catchov]

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

it's  just poor research job and not taking community concerns to look at old FMs thoroughly, but just produce new planes and sell , finly make things even worse by quick "fixing" (december 2014 patch) it in the end. Which they admitted was wrong.

 

We're on the same page Husar. Some people (not mentioning anyone in particular ?) will say fixing the nuts and bolts (FM's) is not a money spinner, but releasing shiny new kites with the same inherent flight issues, is. SAD!

[Trooper117]

11 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

inherent flight issues, is. SAD!

 

It's bad enough being a WWI aviator, flying in a flimsy kite that's not working properly, only to find out I've got to deal with Seasonal Affective Disorder as well... 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

We're on the same page Husar. Some people (not mentioning anyone in particular ?) will say fixing the nuts and bolts (FM's) is not a money spinner, but releasing shiny new kites with the same inherent flight issues, is. SAD!

Well , lets see how truly new Snipe and Siemens would behave. FC plans were just ported with little changes .

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

13 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

inherent flight issues, is. SAD!

 

It's bad enough being a WWI aviator, flying in a flimsy kite that's not working properly, only to find out I've got to deal with Seasonal Affective Disorder as well... 

 

Nice! You trumped me Troops covfefe

[ST_Catchov]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:03 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Well , lets see how truly new Snipe and Siemens would behave. FC plans were just ported with little changes .

 

I haven't pre-ordered them. I'm waiting for the "Impressions of Snipe/Siemens FM" thread before I make a decision.

[Chill31]

@Holtzauge Yes, the key to gentle stall characteristics is leading edge radius.  Airfoils like that will have a flatter curve for CL.

 

The Camel I flew has a stereotypical airfoil of the time, meaning the airfoil is not very different feom any others, such as the Albatross.  Compared to the Dr.I, it has a definitive break, but it is not scary.  It doesnt depart into a wild spin, and it flies readily as soon as the AOA is reduced.

 

My NZ friends say the Fokker D8 completely dominates the 160 Gnome Camel...and the 160 Gnome Camel completely dominates the Alb D5.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

@Holtzauge Yes, the key to gentle stall characteristics is leading edge radius.  Airfoils like that will have a flatter curve for CL.

 

The Camel I flew has a stereotypical airfoil of the time, meaning the airfoil is not very different feom any others, such as the Albatross.  Compared to the Dr.I, it has a definitive break, but it is not scary.  It doesnt depart into a wild spin, and it flies readily as soon as the AOA is reduced.

 

My NZ friends say the Fokker D8 completely dominates the 160 Gnome Camel...and the 160 Gnome Camel completely dominates the Alb D5.

 

The D8 should be faster than the Camel, which isn't the case in FC right now. It marginally outclimbs it, but that's about it. There's a more or less accurate speed disparity between the Dr.I and D8, mostly due to the static RPM of the engine, not due to the aerodynamic merits of the D8, which feels like a hackjob to me. Same for the Camel and Triplane. If the Triplane had the same static RPM as the Camel, it would be faster than it in flight.

 

So in the end, what is the top speed of the Dr.I at sea level with a 120hp Le Rhone (110hp Oberursel)?

[Jamppa]

On 12/9/2022 at 8:03 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

They would just need to climb a lot more, which the Germans certainly did do. The early S.E.5a (sadly missing from the roster) could not even climb up to the Albatros D.III/D.Va. Then in 1918 onwards there's the Fokkers to seriously even out the playing field and get that "new player ride". The D.VII even turned Göring into an ace. Here we just need the 200hp D.VII to bridge the gap between May and the late summer when the F was available in numbers along with a limited number of Siemens-Schuckert.

 

Hermann Göring already had 18 victories before DVII came to front, so he was an ace long before Fokker DVII era and he only shot down 4 planes when flying his white Fokker.

[Holtzauge]

6 hours ago, Chill31 said:

My NZ friends say the Fokker D8 completely dominates the 160 Gnome Camel...and the 160 Gnome Camel completely dominates the Alb D5.

 

What would they mean by “completely dominates”? A Sopwith Camel with a 160 hp engine should be quite competitive in terms of performance: It should be faster and climb better than a 130 hp Clerget engined variant. 

 

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The D8 should be faster than the Camel, which isn't the case in FC right now. It marginally outclimbs it, but that's about it. There's a more or less accurate speed disparity between the Dr.I and D8, mostly due to the static RPM of the engine, not due to the aerodynamic merits of the D8, which feels like a hackjob to me. Same for the Camel and Triplane. If the Triplane had the same static RPM as the Camel, it would be faster than it in flight.

 

So in the end, what is the top speed of the Dr.I at sea level with a 120hp Le Rhone (110hp Oberursel)?

 

I just checked my own speed numbers that I plan to publish in my book, and they seem to be pretty well aligned with the RoF manual (I’m looking at version 1.033c rev 1.0) when it comes to the Fokker Dr.I, D.VIII and Sopwith Camel. What would be the sources saying that a Fokker D.VIII would be faster?

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

21 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

What would they mean by “completely dominates”? A Sopwith Camel with a 160 hp engine should be quite competitive in terms of performance: It should be faster and climb better than a 130 hp Clerget engined variant. 

 

 

I just checked my own speed numbers that I plan to publish in my book, and they seem to be pretty well aligned with the RoF manual (I’m looking at version 1.033c rev 1.0) when it comes to the Fokker Dr.I, D.VIII and Sopwith Camel. What would be the sources saying that a Fokker D.VIII would be faster?

 

 

I've always heard top speed figures from the D8 consistently reported to be around 190-200km/h. German Aircraft of the First World War says 204km/h at ground level. Correct me if I'm wrong but in FC its top speed is around 180km/h, at the very least slower than the Camel. I remember it being a bit more in RoF at one point, maybe around 185km/h.

 

The Camel's speed is pretty accurate at around 190km/h (maybe 2-5km/h too fast), if it wasn't for the fact that almost everything else is 5-10km/h too slow, including the Albatros, Pfalz, Dolphin and SPAD XIII. As for the Triplane, no complaints in terms of absolute speed, other than it has lower static RPM than the Camel using the same engine. Same problem with the Dr.I and D.VIII.

[Holtzauge]

38 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I've always heard top speed figures from the D8 consistently reported to be around 190-200km/h. German Aircraft of the First World War says 204km/h at ground level. Correct me if I'm wrong but in FC its top speed is around 180km/h, at the very least slower than the Camel. I remember it being a bit more in RoF at one point, maybe around 185km/h.

 

The Camel's speed is pretty accurate at around 190km/h (maybe 2-5km/h too fast), if it wasn't for the fact that almost everything else is 5-10km/h too slow, including the Albatros, Pfalz, Dolphin and SPAD XIII. As for the Triplane, no complaints in terms of absolute speed, other than it has lower static RPM than the Camel using the same engine. Same problem with the Dr.I and D.VIII.

 

The RoF manual says 185 Km/h for the D.VIII with the Le Rhone and this where I’m at as well. The best data I’ve found so far is the US test from the McCock airfield which is not totally aligned with a WW1 era Germans scout but which I’ve used as a base. Looking at the 204 Km/h figure in Grey & Thetford, I would suspect that that is for one of the up-engined variants of the D.VIII, not the vanilla 120 hp Le Rhone. The reason I say this is if you look at the climb time to 4000 m in Grey’s book it says a little over 10 min which is way better than you would expect with a 120 hp Le Rhone. That’s more in line with what I would expect of a Fokker D.VIIF, so way better than a vanilla D.VIII.

 

[Holtzauge]

PS: I rummaged my records and found it: The 10 min climb time is with a Goebel Goe.III engine (187 hp T/O rating and 160 hp continuous): This was a climb time recorded by the pilot Schützenmeister at the Adlershof trials fighter trials on the 10th of June 1918 flying the Fokker V.28 prototype: T/O weight 606 Kg, 10.4 min to 4000 5000 m. But I still wonder about the speed figure though: Maybe that's from a later trial since AFAIK, they did not measure speeds at the Adlershof trials but were content to list the competing scouts in the order fastest to slowest.

 

Correction: The Goe time was to 5000 m but Schützenmeister also flew the V.28 with the more powerful (than the Le Rhone 120 hp similar Ur.II) Oberursel Ur.III and recorded climb times of 13.4, 13.9 and 14.0 m to 5000 m so maybe the 10 min to 4000 m was with an Ur.III. The Ur.II was recorded at 19.3 and 21.6 to 5000 m but with a lower 556 Kg T/O weight.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Holtzauge

[Trooper117]

12 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

I haven't pre-ordered them. I'm waiting for the "Impressions of Snipe/Siemens FM" thread before I make a decision.

 

I'm with him...

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

PS: I rummaged my records and found it: The 10 min climb time is with a Goebel Goe.III engine (187 hp T/O rating and 160 hp continuous): This was a climb time recorded by the pilot Schützenmeister at the Adlershof trials fighter trials on the 10th of June 1918 flying the Fokker V.28 prototype: T/O weight 606 Kg, 10.4 min to 4000 5000 m. But I still wonder about the speed figure though: Maybe that's from a later trial since AFAIK, they did not measure speeds at the Adlershof trials but were content to list the competing scouts in the order fastest to slowest.

 

Correction: The Goe time was to 5000 m but Schützenmeister also flew the V.28 with the more powerful (than the Le Rhone 120 hp similar Ur.II) Oberursel Ur.III and recorded climb times of 13.4, 13.9 and 14.0 m to 5000 m so maybe the 10 min to 4000 m was with an Ur.III. The Ur.II was recorded at 19.3 and 21.6 to 5000 m but with a lower 556 Kg T/O weight.

 

 

Wasn't this all really in function of the lack of castor oil which the Germans suffered during WWI?

 

This also makes me wonder about the operational reality of the Siemens-Halske Sh.III on the SS D.IV.

[Holtzauge]

59 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

Wasn't this all really in function of the lack of castor oil which the Germans suffered during WWI?

 

This also makes me wonder about the operational reality of the Siemens-Halske Sh.III on the SS D.IV.

 

For sure castor oil would have improved things in comparison to the Voltol substitute used in the field by the Germans but then that argument would be applicable to all rotary engines, Le Rhone , Ur.II & III and Sh.III etc. My point was simply that I found the 185 km/h SL max speed for the D.VIII with the 120 hp Le Rhone/Ur.II more reasonable than the 200 km/h figure given in Grey & Thetford.

 

In addition, this is what Michael Tate’s book “Fokker design & development to 1919” has to say about V.28 speed: “With the URIII installed, Hegener reports the V28 as capable of a speed of 124 mph”. Also the 204 Km/h figure seems to stem from a British report citing a French source according to Tate.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

46 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

For sure castor oil would have improved things in comparison to the Voltol substitute used in the field by the Germans but then that argument would be applicable to all rotary engines, Le Rhone , Ur.II & III and Sh.III etc. My point was simply that I found the 185 km/h SL max speed for the D.VIII with the 120 hp Le Rhone/Ur.II more reasonable than the 200 km/h figure given in Grey & Thetford.

 

 

I can squeeze 182km/h out of the D.VIII at sea level in FC, I suppose that's within the "not allowed to complain" margins (<5km/h of what it should be). It's just a pity that the Camel is slightly too fast and the D.VIII slightly too slow, as in its present form it really doesn't hold a candle to the Camel, at least below 3000m.

[Holtzauge]

10 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I can squeeze 182km/h out of the D.VIII at sea level in FC, I suppose that's within the "not allowed to complain" margins (<5km/h of what it should be). It's just a pity that the Camel is slightly too fast and the D.VIII slightly too slow, as in its present form it really doesn't hold a candle to the Camel, at least below 3000m.

 

Well I have the Camel modeled at 188 Km/h SL but it is really difficult to be sure of exactly what numbers are representative I think. There is a spread in the data and the engines of the time were very fickle individual beasts who delivered performance depending on how well they were tuned, how much wear they had on them and last but not least, how well the had been run in. Many of us who are a bit older remember how you had to mollycoddle a new car engine and change the oil regularly before you stared revving them or else you would lose performance and drive around a car with a blue smoke screen behind you. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

I just checked my own speed numbers that I plan to publish in my book, and they seem to be pretty well aligned with the RoF manual (I’m looking at version 1.033c rev 1.0) when it comes to the Fokker Dr.I, D.VIII and Sopwith Camel. What would be the sources saying that a Fokker D.VIII would be faster?

 

The Fokker Dr.1 in FC is not the same as it was before in ROF and which numbers are  in the manual or store page. They ported all ROF planes as they were  before december 2014 patch exept  the Dr.1 which  was ported with FM after the patch (nerfed engine).

 

Petrovich about this change.

 

Sadly he didn't had time and/or resources to correct Dr.1 because he had plans  not only port the correct FM but make more changes to FM  like excessive nose up attitude and meybe more.

Edited December 13, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Holtzauge]

42 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

The Fokker Dr.1 in FC is not the same as it was before in ROF and which numbers are  in the manual or store page. They ported all ROF planes as they were  before december 2014 patch exept  the Dr.1 which  was ported with FM after the patch (nerfed engine).

 

Petrovich about this change.

 

Sadly he didn't had time and/or resources to correct Dr.1 because he had plans  not only port the correct FM but make more changes to FM  like excessive nose up attitude and meybe more.

 

OK, well I have seen some info about changes back and forth in the forums and that some people talk about the “nerfing” of certain FM’s but I am not up to date on that which was why I was referring to the 1.033c rev 1.0 manual.

 

So is it only the Dr.I that deviates from this manual? Or are there others as well? And in that case, which aircraft deviate from the 1.033c rev 1.0 manual and in which way? Has someone documented what we have today in FC? I’m thinking like climb times and speed/altitude numbers?

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

OK, well I have seen some info about changes back and forth in the forums and that some people talk about the “nerfing” of certain FM’s but I am not up to date on that which was why I was referring to the 1.033c rev 1.0 manual.

 

So is it only the Dr.I that deviates from this manual? Or are there others as well? And in that case, which aircraft deviate from the 1.033c rev 1.0 manual and in which way? Has someone documented what we have today in FC? I’m thinking like climb times and speed/altitude numbers?

A propeller fix was done at some point which among other things slowed down the Pfalz D.IIIa and SPAD XIII. The numbers in-game were going to be updated « in the next update » two or three years ago.

[Red_Von_Hammer]

On 12/13/2022 at 9:38 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

The Fokker Dr.1 in FC is not the same as it was before in ROF and which numbers are  in the manual or store page. They ported all ROF planes as they were  before december 2014 patch exept  the Dr.1 which  was ported with FM after the patch (nerfed engine).

Sadly he didn't had time and/or resources to correct Dr.1 because he had plans  not only port the correct FM but make more changes to FM  like excessive nose up attitude and meybe more.

Yeah, and to their credit, Chill says it's largely accurate, I trust him.
But, "Largely" being the key word here, even before the nerf I could only do very limited 50 degree sideslips, it still can't do 90 degree sideways reversal

Or 180 degree half flat spin

As per B.Flight & Mccudden's personal report, they were experienced hands at "the game" and not someone that lightly joked around.

In addition, we've all seen Chill do it, carefully of course, the forces at play are such that violent post-stall direction changes/maneuvers could well wreck engine bearings, but he has done it.
1:22 & 2:02 & 2:12

Years ago saw a guy with a radial (which largely omits engine reliability concerns) do it like nobody's business, I've been searching for that video for years now, but alas..

Edited December 15, 2022 by Red_Von_Hammer
Typing falws & general re-do.

[US103_Baer]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:24 AM, Holtzauge said:

 

I cover that in the book but to give some sort of preview: I'm more optimistic than RoF when it comes to climb times for the Albatros D.Va with the vanilla 180 hp Mercedes D.IIIa variant needing only about 21 m to 4000 m rather than 35 m as in RoF. In addition, I assume a SL top speed closer to 180 Km/h rather than 170 Km/h as in the RoF manual (I'm assuming it's the same here in FC?). So while RoF seems to be more optimistic in turn performance, I'm more optimistic when it comes to climb and speed.

 

With the D.IIIaü engine the D.Va takes a big jump in climb performance to 4000 m, essentially beating all Entente scouts bar the 220 hp SPAD S.XIII which it matches in climb time to this altitude. For the SPAD S.XIII 220 hp I am in agreement with the numbers (speed and climb time) posted by @US103_Baer here. About the turn times for the D.Va these will of course improve as well with the D.IIIaü engine, going from around 20.5 to 24.5 deg /s at 6000 ft. So when looking at the numbers I already posted here comparing the D.Va to the Nieuport 28, this means that the D.Va would now beat the N28 at this altitude in turn performance.

 

PS: In the book I have a chapter where I explain what data I have used for tuning the C++ simulation models. So here I refer to what data I use and the motive for selecting it. As an example, for the SPAD S.XIII, I use the same data as @US103_Baer highlighted in a red background color in his post, i.e. the S.512 equipped with the Ratmanoff 6727 prop.

 

 

 

Is there a more eagerly awaited book? Really looking forward to getting a copy. Do keep us updated on release.

 

 

[Holtzauge]

5 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

Is there a more eagerly awaited book? Really looking forward to getting a copy. Do keep us updated on release.

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words and I'm pretty much ready to go to print but I'm still waiting on an OK regarding the technical content from some people and I also need to make sure that I have clearance to use some of the pictures in the book.

[Holtzauge]

@=IRFC=Hellbender : I just thought of another thing pointing to the circa 200 km/h figure for the Fokker D.VIII being for the Oberursel Ur.III, and not the Ur.II as stated in Thetford & Grey:

 

The Ur.II output was around 120 hp while the Ur.III was circa 145 hp and if we assume 185 Km/h for the Ur.II powered variant, a ballpark estimate for the Ur.III would be (Using the speed coupled to the cube of the power rule):

 

(145/120)^(1/3)*185= 197 km/h reasonably close to 200 km/h.

 

This ties in rather nicely with the Ur.III climb figures I posted above as well.

 

So in conclusion, I think everything is pointing to that the speed and climb numbers for the Fokker D.VIII in Thetford & Grey are not for the vanilla Oberursel Ur.II variant we have in-game, but rather for the far racier 145 hp Oberursel Ur.III powered V.28 variant they tested at Adlershof.