Snipe news...

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've flown it twice now on one of my maps against AI Dr.1s.

 

It's fast, but otherwise flys like a fast lorry.  Something isn't right here.  In it's current state I'd say it's a B n Z aircraft at best.  

 

Turns?  Forget about it.  Seems quite heavy on the controls.

 

It's not at all what I expected for the most advanced Entente rotary engine scout.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

4 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I've flown it twice now on one of my maps against AI Dr.1s.

 

It's fast, but otherwise flys like a fast lorry.  Something isn't right here.  In it's current state I'd say it's a B n Z aircraft at best.  

 

Turns?  Forget about it.  Seems quite heavy on the controls.

 

It's not at all what I expected for the most advanced Entente rotary engine scout.

Agreed.  Not the turn fighter I was expecting.

[LukeFF]

Where in the original sources does it say it was supposed to be a turn fighter? 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Pretty sure everyone is talking about thier impressions Luke.  But..can you post a link to the original sources doc you are referring to?  Haven't seen it.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited December 23, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Where in the original sources does it say it was supposed to be a turn fighter? 

"Turn Fighter" and "Using a Turn in a Dogfight Without Dying" are very different things.  It should easily be able to outturn the SPAD XIII, which it currently matches in the turn. 

I've brought up this issue in the beta forum. 

[LukeFF]

21 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Pretty sure everyone is talking about thier impressions Luke.  But..can you post a link to the original sources doc you are referring to?  Haven't seen it.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

You know how this goes - someone says a plane doesn't match their "impressions" based on who knows what, then it morphs into claims the FM was rushed, that the programmers are favoring one side or another, etc., etc. 

 

I'm not an expert in flight model characteristics, so when someone says it doesn't match their impressions, I'm genuinely curious to know upon what they are basing their claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

21 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

"Turn Fighter" and "Using a Turn in a Dogfight Without Dying" are very different things.  It should easily be able to outturn the SPAD XIII, which it currently matches in the turn. 

I've brought up this issue in the beta forum. 

 

Fair enough, aye.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

You know how this goes - someone says a plane doesn't match their "impressions" based on who knows what, then it morphs into claims the FM was rushed, that the programmers are favoring one side or another, etc., etc. 

 

I'm not an expert in flight model characteristics, so when someone says it doesn't match their impressions, I'm genuinely curious to know upon what they are basing their claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Fair enough, aye.

No sweat mate, would still to see the docs you refer to though.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

You know how this goes - someone says a plane doesn't match their "impressions" based on who knows what, then it morphs into claims the FM was rushed, that the programmers are favoring one side or another, etc., etc. 

 

I'm not an expert in flight model characteristics, so when someone says it doesn't match their impressions, I'm genuinely curious to know upon what they are basing their claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I would never claim that the FM was rushed, for all we know this is exactly how the Snipe behaved in real life.

 

Compared to all the other FMs ported over from RoF, all of which are now close to 10 years old or more, many of which have been proven are inaccurate to varying degrees, I would say there's a fundamental disconnect.

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I would never claim that the FM was rushed, for all we know this is exactly how the Snipe behaved in real life.

 

Compared to all the other FMs ported over from RoF, all of which are now close to 10 years old or more, many of which have been proven are inaccurate to varying degrees, I would say there's a fundamental disconnect.

 

Yes, I fully agree with you on that. You've always been one of those sane voices through the years, both here and with ROF. I just know what happens when less-sane voices get involved in discussions like this: chaos tends to ensure, all sorts of wrongheaded accusations are made, and people end up loathing each other. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

I maintain that the problem with the Snipe (compared to the other FMs, not saying the Snipe itself is wrong) is wing loading. This is clearly demonstrated if you turn as tight as possible at sea level with 20l of fuel and can't really dip below 140km/h unless you throttle down.

 

After consulting with "the powers that be":

 

Quote

I think this should be exactly proportional to wing loading. The higher the wing loading = the higher the speed needed to sustain a given load factor. Horsepower, aspect ratio and airfoil need not even come into play, yet*. 

The wing area is knowable. The weight is knowable. Divide the two for each type we wish to compare and plot them. If the Snipe is off the line, it is probably wrong. 

*if one wing is a flat barn door then it definitely matters. But these wings by this point in the war have similar airfoils. For equivalent wing loadings, other factors like aspect and camber are for the engine to manage. The less ideal the setup = more power required to sustain the load (counter the drag).

In fact, on thinking about this further. This comparison needn’t be made at the very edge of a stall at as close to knife-edge as the excess thrust will allow. The comparison can be done in a granny bank of 30° for each type.

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

10 hours ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

"I've brought up this issue in the beta forum. "

Thank you brother for doing that!

[76SQN-FatherTed]

15 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

No sweat mate, would still to see the docs you refer to though.

I think Luke is asking for others to cite their sources about it being a turn fighter, rather than making any claims himself either way

[LukeFF]

30 minutes ago, 76SQN-FatherTed said:

I think Luke is asking for others to cite their sources about it being a turn fighter, rather than making any claims himself either way

 

Yes, that's right. 

[No.23_Starling]

When it comes to turn performance, I would hazard that the best sources will be digital models created by real engineers. We can learn a lot using the wing loading, power loading, etc and other data available to us, then employing tools currently used to design real aeronautics. Holtze is definitely on to something powerful with his research.
 

Mr Bender is right though that without a scientific look at some of the other models dating back to early RoF days the relative performance mix of types will likely be problematic.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

The Snipe wasn’t strictly a turn fighter to the degree of the Camel and Dr1. I don’t think anyone here should be arguing that.

 

I think it’s really much more of a case of the Dolphin, in which it is a boom and zoom plane which *can* turn as a means of defeating its opponent. This is as opposed to the SPAD where a level turn will get you killed fast against any opponent.

Edited December 23, 2022 by =IRFC=Artun

[BlitzPig_EL]

I think I have not properly described my initial "feelings" about the Snipe.

 

I'm not talking about about turns per se, but really overall maneuverability, if that makes sense.  The aeroplane just feels "stiff" to me, like changing attitude in any plane, pitch, roll or yaw, is slow, or stiff,  like it just prefers to fly straight and level.

 

I hope that is more clear an explanation.

Edited December 23, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[Chill31]

The Snipe doesnt have any indication of being an exceptionally numble fighter.  Power to weight and wingloading are both worse than the Camel.  

 

The Camel's ailerons get VERY heavy over about 90-100 mph.  So I imagine the Snipe controls are quite heavy indeed when it is really moving along. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

16 hours ago, 76SQN-FatherTed said:

I think Luke is asking for others to cite their sources about it being a turn fighter, rather than making any claims himself either way

Perhaps,  but I'm beginning to think he just likes me..???.. To be fair, I should have said "Hoping for", and not "Expecting"..  but I'm forever the optimist..

 

And I'm my uneducated observation  , it appears to be more of a Spad on steroids, than a next generation Camel.  But I do like it, and happy to have it as an optional plane to fly.

 

And to be clear, this is my opinion,not based on wind tunnel testing, complex computer models or anything remotely scientific.   

Edited December 24, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The Snipe doesnt have any indication of being an exceptionally numble fighter.  Power to weight and wingloading are both worse than the Camel.  

 

The Camel's ailerons get VERY heavy over about 90-100 mph.  So I imagine the Snipe controls are quite heavy indeed when it is really moving along. 

The simple question is: is it more nimble than the Dolphin or SPAD XIII?

[Chill31]

On 12/23/2022 at 8:45 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

The simple question is: is it more nimble than the Dolphin or SPAD XIII?

My guess, without having flown any of those, is not really.  All are double bay biplanes with long wings, similar airfoils, and comparable wing/power loading.

 

Who has the climb times for these birds?  @Holtzaugecan probably tell us reasonably well based on the airfoil capabilities and aircraft weights.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Was the Snipe a turn fighter, or a boomer-zoomer !
 

Anyone who thinks strictly in these terms is slightly missing the point.  Any aircraft can be either of these things, it’s all relative.

 

The Snipe was a boomer - zoomer, but only because it was a turn fighter !

 

The Snipe, as was the Dolphin before it, designed with an eye to operating at higher altitudes (the Snipe specifically as an escort for the newly formed Independent (bomber) force).  Combat, in this ‘rarefied’ atmosphere was more akin to ballet than wrestling.  Maximising, and more importantly, retaining lift (relative to weight) was the key to gaining advantage.  You might not be the ‘snappiest’ of turners, but if you only lose 100 ft while turning against your adversary while they lose 500ft (with no easy way to regain it) then the fight, all things being equal, will only ever be going to go one way, with the disadvantaged aircrafts best option being to disengage, if opportunity allows, to reposition and try again.

 

Unfortunately the Snipe is not best suited to a game like FC, that tends, not only, to be played at lower altitudes, because it’s time consuming to have to climb to altitude, but because nobody values altitude in a turning fight because it appears, at least to me, to be poorly implemented within the game, the Plazocopter (from RoF) being but it’s most egregious example, but even the present DVa and D IIIa are prime, but not the only examples, with questionable altitude retention in a turn.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by HagarTheHorrible

[J99_Sizzlorr]

2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

[...]

Unfortunately the Snipe is not best suited to a game like FC, that tends, not only, to be played at lower altitudes, because it’s time consuming to have to climb to altitude, but because nobody values altitude in a turning fight because it appears, at least to me, to be poorly implemented within the game, the Plazocopter (from RoF) being but it’s most egregious example, but even the present DVa and D IIIa are prime, but not the only examples, with questionable altitude retention in a turn.

 

 

There are some misconception in your last part of your post. If anything the current Albatros should climb better and be faster with the appropirate engine for 1918. Also FC is not really played purely at lower altitudes, many people value altitude and will take the extra time to climb in multiplayer to have a better position.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Unfortunately the Snipe is not best suited to a game like FC, that tends, not only, to be played at lower altitudes, because it’s time consuming to have to climb to altitude, but because nobody values altitude in a turning fight because it appears, at least to me, to be poorly implemented within the game, the Plazocopter (from RoF) being but it’s most egregious example, but even the present DVa and D IIIa are prime, but not the only examples, with questionable altitude retention in a turn.

 

The Snipe is suffering from the exact same issues as the Fokker D.VIII: it's a late war refinement of an earlier highly successful design (Camel and Fokker Dr.I), with the extreme advantages and disadvantages ironed out. In the end you're left with something that simply cannot press its advantage in a dogfight, because it does nothing particularly well. In my opinion it also shows the limits of the simulation, since according to both history books and even modern day recreations (according to @Chill31, at least), the Fokker D.VIII should dominate the Sopwith Camel at lower altitudes. I invite you to try the same in FC. The D.VIII climbs better and is more maneuverable above 3000m, where nobody is fighting, but is otherwise dead meat.

 

With the Snipe it's even more clear cut: you don't need to consider anything but the Fokker D.VIIF. The Snipe's climb is so steep that unless you get caught by an extremely lucky prophang, you can climb away from everything that isn't an F. The vanilla D.VII simply lacks power and the Dr.I and D.VIII are just too slow. The problem is that if you do face a D.VIIF in a Snipe, you're in real trouble. You will do better than a Camel at 3000m, sure, but not well enough to press any kind of advantage, except a more forgiving dive, but in no way a dive that's as good as the SPAD. Once you're at sea level again the Camel is a far superior dogfighting machine, which it should be. Here the history books are clear again that at least against the most common D.VII variant (with the 200hp D.IIIaü), the Snipe should have a maneuverability advantage.

 

The final question you can ask is: what even is maneuverability? Is it responsiveness to control inputs? Is it sustained turn? Instantaneous turn? Roll? If roll were of significant advantage in a dogfight then the Nieuport 28 in its present form would have them all beat.

 

I would opine that it's a combination of the above factors, and in its present form this is not apparent at all in the Snipe.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Last time I went for theoretical PPL exam the maneuvrability was defined as quality opposite to stability ; maneuvrable plane is one easy to change attitude of, and resisting maintain attitudw. So on paper it means control responsiveness and amount of input you need to just to maintain the attitude.

 

Of course using stable <--> maneuvrable as opposing ends of a single axis makes planes like in game D.Va (which is both at once!) bit hard to explain :). 

 

Looking at practicalities of air combat, I would connect "maneuvrability" with *speed/energy cost of changing the attitude*. For instance, in game S.E and N.28 have good initial responsiveness, but bleed speed so fast that *using* this responsiveness in combat leaves them dead in the water. Camel has bad initial responsiveness, but once you force it into new attitude you still have plenty of energy. DVa sucks speed and energy wise, but loses very little energy in maneuvers so is great scissors machine. Und so waiter....

7 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I never said most of things I said, how do I delete this box?

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by J2_Trupobaw

[Holtzauge]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:14 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

Snip: "(according to @Chill31, at least), the Fokker D.VIII should dominate the Sopwith Camel at lower altitudes."

 

Snip: "The final question you can ask is: what even is maneuverability? Is it responsiveness to control inputs? Is it sustained turn? Instantaneous turn? Roll?"

 

 

@Chill31 & @=IRFC=Hellbender: But what does "dominate" mean in this context? Just HOW does the D.VIII dominate? Speed?, Climb? Sustained turns? Instantaneous turns? Roll speed? Roll acceleration? Light responsive controls?

 

Or maybe it's just more "maneuverable"? 

 

12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Snip: "Last time I went for theoretical PPL exam the maneuvrability was defined as quality opposite to stability ; maneuvrable plane is one easy to change attitude of, and resisting maintain attitudw."

 

This is the million $ question because there seems to be so many different opinions, ranging from turn capability, roll agility, light and responsive controls etc......

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

This is the million $ question because there seems to be so many different opinions, ranging from turn capability, roll agility, light and responsive controls etc......

 

John Boyd called those Fast Transients.  Like a Mig-15 could out turn a Sabre at altitude, but the hydraulic controls of the Sabre meant you could fake the Mig pilot out of his jockstrap with snappy maneuvers.  Mig-15 was heavy on the controls.

[No.23_Triggers]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:14 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

The final question you can ask is: what even is maneuverability? Is it responsiveness to control inputs? Is it sustained turn? Instantaneous turn? Roll? If roll were of significant advantage in a dogfight then the Nieuport 28 in its present form would have them all beat.

I don't think any of us are under any false pretences - "Manoeuvrability" in FC context = "how well does this plane do in a knife fight?" ...in the case of the Snipe, I'm not overly impressed tbh. 

The snipe to me, currently, feels...average. It does everything sort of OK, but the D.VIIF uberplane should still handily whip it in a dogfight. For speed / BnZ, you'd be better off with an S.E / SPAD, for turn you'd be better off with a camel. I certainly don't get the "best plane of the war" vibes that its historical pilots seemed to believe in...

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US103_Larner said:

I don't think any of us are under any false pretences - "Manoeuvrability" in FC context = "how well does this plane do in a knife fight?" ...in the case of the Snipe, I'm not overly impressed tbh. 

The snipe to me, currently, feels...average. It does everything sort of OK, but the D.VIIF uberplane should still handily whip it in a dogfight. For speed / BnZ, you'd be better off with an S.E / SPAD, for turn you'd be better off with a camel. I certainly don't get the "best plane of the war" vibes that its historical pilots seemed to believe in...

 

My thoughts, to the letter.

 

At high altitude the D.VIIF rightfully reigns supreme against the Snipe, but at low altitude the Snipe doesn't have any advantages over the F either. Nothing, zero, nada. That actually makes it worse than the Dolphin that can outturn the D.VIIF (just barely) at sea level. Heck it makes it worse than the Fokker D.VIII, which can climb to over 3000m where it is faster than the Camel and outturns everything else.

 

So, effectively speaking, while it holds its own against everything else on Central on account of its decent enough speed (which almost matches the Dolphin) and excellent climb (which exceeds even the SPAD), the moment you face a D.VIIF in the Snipe you might as well be in a Nieuport 28.

 

To me the Snipe is to the Camel as the vanilla Fokker D.VII is to the Fokker Dr.I. Climbs better, is faster, but altogether too unwieldy to be a good dogfighter. And this is the point that bothers me: the Snipe is lighter than the Fokker D.VII, Dolphin and S.E.5a; and has better wing loading and a way more powerful engine (at least way more powerful than the Clerget)... yet it turns worse? Well, the Snipe's turn is more or less equal to the S.E.5a, a plane it shares its wing aspect ratio with. I suppose that's really the only thing that matters to the sim.

 

For the record: the N28 is still inexplicably awful in spite of being as light as a Camel and having a higher aspect ratio than it. Something is really rotten.

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Chill31]

@Holtzauge my friend who described the actionnsaid it was a dogfight. Fwiw. And that the Camel had no had no chance against the D8.  Ill ask for details, but it has been some years now since he saw it.

[No.23_Triggers]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

For the record: the N28 is still inexplicably awful in spite of being as light as a Camel and having a higher aspect ratio than it. Something is really rotten.

Not to get too off-topic but, yes. This. The N28 is in desperate need of a FM revision...although it took a painful amount of time, the Devs really came through with the DM updates and the result was a vast improvement to FC (imo). I'm really hoping that they have the time and inclination to give the FMs the same treatment in the not-too-distant future.

[Holtzauge]

12 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

John Boyd called those Fast Transients.  Like a Mig-15 could out turn a Sabre at altitude, but the hydraulic controls of the Sabre meant you could fake the Mig pilot out of his jockstrap with snappy maneuvers.  Mig-15 was heavy on the controls.

 

Interesting about the stick forces. Did not know that about the Sabre and Mig. But this is a thing in FC as well I think: While I have not studied it in detail, to me it seems possible to bottom out the controls at any speed in any FC aircraft? However, just as an example, IRL it seems that both @Chill31 and Mikael Carlson talk about quite stiff ailerons on both the Camel and Pfalz D.VIII.

 

6 hours ago, Chill31 said:

@Holtzauge my friend who described the actionnsaid it was a dogfight. Fwiw. And that the Camel had no had no chance against the D8.  Ill ask for details, but it has been some years now since he saw it.

 

OK, thanks for the info and if you get anything more that would be good. A Le Rhone powered D.VIII should indeed climb better but what else does it have? Maybe roll performance? The Clerget Camel's speed and turn performance on paper is better. In addition, what engines were the aircraft equipped with and how hard were they pushing the aircraft? I think it's difficult to judge based on modern tests where the aircraft are not taken to the limit. A bit like the recent Nieuport N.28 versus Mikael Carlson's Fokker D.VII "dogfight": The N28 is a museum piece and when Mikael flew it he said he treated it as such. In addition, the throttle lever controlling Mikael's Mercedes D.IIIaü is limited in travel and he is nowhere near taking out max performance so I would say it's difficult to draw conclusions about how they would compare if both pilots were riding the stall engines screaming?

 

@=IRFC=Hellbender & @US103_Larner: The Sopwith Snipe is not covered in my book. My take on the Snipe though, is that with the ABC Dragonfly engine it would have been a beast but the marriage with the Bentley BR2 did not come off well. However, I have now begun to model it with the BR2 and have some preliminary results: With this engine the Snipe is weak at altitude but it does all right at lower altitudes. In fact for me the Snipe and Camel are close to equal in sustained turn up to around 3.5 Km altitude after which the Bentley runs out of steam.

 

However, I’m not going to post details in the forum until I have run my modeling by the developers. I want to avoid causing any commotion in the forum before they have had a chance to look at the results in my book and my results for the Snipe.

 

What I can say though, is that I have slightly higher turn times at lower altitudes with more of the other aircraft close to the current Snipe and the order in which the aircraft stack is better aligned with what I perceive as the communities expectations. The big difference however, is at higher altitudes where FC seems very optimistic to me.

 

But all this is plain to see in the book and as I said before, I think the best way forward is to give the developers some time to digest my results and the rationale behind them and take it from there.