Which path should/will flight model development in Flying Circus take?

[No.23_Starling]

JM Bruce on the Dolphin

Christopher Cole on McCudden

 

JM Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the RFC

4 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I agree. There was a ton of field modification happening in every single air force. The Camel alone operated with 7 different engines.

 

Gnome Monosoupape 9B 100 hp (early British when the Clerget 9B was still unreliable)

Le Rhône 9J 110/120hp (early British when the Clerget 9B was still unreliable)

Le Rhône 9Jby 120/130hp (with the Belgians)

Clerget 9B 130hp (standard variant)

Clerget 9Bf 140hp (uprated British license-built Clerget)

Bentley BR.1 150hp (with the RNAS)

Gnome Monosoupape 9N 160hp (with the USAS)

 

Penty of Fokker Dr.Is also flew with captured Le Rhônes which may have given them up to 130hp if they also had access to castor oil.

 

Ideally I'd like to have them all as field modifications.

 

 

Why not, really? The more options we have, as long as they are rooted in reality, the better.

 

It's not like we're asking for an R.E.8 with a 220hp Hispano-Suiza or something ludicrous like th--

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In fairness, a lot of waffles were involved in the making of that decision.

 

Spot on. Right now we have 1917 Hispano and Mercedes, and the late BMW which sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

We really need higher compression versions of all types fitted with these engines, not least the DVII which - from what I’ve read - was not used in great numbers in early 1918 with the standard Mercedes. 

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Its a business, and a sideline one at that (WWI).  Now some of you are trying to raise the bar to inclusion of field modifications which is really impracticable.  Gee whiz, yeah, of course it would be cool.  But is it reasonable, realistic or even beneficial at this point.to be setting expectations that high?   

[Holtzauge]

Fascinating development in this thread! I see I have some questions to respond to but that will have to wait until Sunday since real life is vying for attention and I will be Afk until then. Cheers! 

[No.23_Starling]

40 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

It’s a business, and a sideline one at that (WWI).  Now some of you are trying to raise the bar to inclusion of field modifications which is really impracticable.  Gee whiz, yeah, of course it would be cool.  But is it reasonable, realistic or even beneficial at this point.to be setting expectations that high?   

The sources I’ve read (and quote above) state that all Hispano 8Bs and Merc Diiis were either built or upgraded to high compression in early 1918. That’s not like the rare addition of a top wing Lewis gun, it’s standard equipment.

 

You could argue that the DVIIF was a field mod upgrade where engines were swapped out.

[BMA_Hellbender]

59 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Its a business, and a sideline one at that (WWI).  Now some of you are trying to raise the bar to inclusion of field modifications which is really impracticable.  Gee whiz, yeah, of course it would be cool.  But is it reasonable, realistic or even beneficial at this point.to be setting expectations that high?   

 

I'm not advocating for exhaustiveness, only for consistency. Having a Halberstadt CL.II with a regular 180hp and an overcompressed 200hp engine but no Albatros D.Va or Fokker D.VII with the same variants is odd to say the least. In the same vein, having an early and late Albatros D.II and an early and late SPAD VII, but only a late S.E.5a (Viper) is equally odd. Same with the Fokker D.VIIF for the Fokker D.VII, but no Bentley Camel or Le Rhône Camel for the Clerget Camel, and no regular Pfalz D.XII for the existing mislabeled Pfalz D.XII (actually a Pfalz D.XIIf).

 

I realise that all these planes are a product of when they were released within the development cycle of Rise of Flight, but with their re-release for Flying Circus it would be a good time to correct those inconsistencies. It shouldn't even happen for free, as far as I'm concerned. An engine variant pack per volume or even individual collector planes would make sense. New content is new content. The only thing I feel uncomfortable with is paying for fixes to content I already own.

 

As for what @US103_Rummell suggests: yes some of those variants are more obscure and are probably not needed. The Nieuport 17 probably doesn't need the Nieuport 23, 24 and 27, even though it already has the GBR version. Then again, if we base ourselves purely off of how relevant a plane was to the conflict, then the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV takes the cake in how obscure and irrelevant it was. It's still going to be a very nice addition to the roster, as long as the existing content is brought up to the current level of FM refinement.

[ST_Catchov]

It is a very interesting discussion going on here and my enjoyment of it is immense. Needless to say, it does show the refined quality and intelligent discourse of the gentlemen that inhabit WW1 forums, as opposed to that other type.

 

However, as fascinating as all contributions have been, I must stress that the most important FM revisions must come first as Holtzy has so boldly indicated below. The devs must focus on these two crates above all else. Some may be disappointed yes but the facts are indisputable and logic determines how and why the devs should proceed. And it is thus. 

 

Gentlemen, let us not bicker. You know it is the right thing to do. First things first and then we may converse on other subjects [for instance] such as why the bloody RNAS always got the better crates and engines first! Was it that Churchill chap? Jesus he really stuffed up Gallipoli. And just about did it to the RFC! But that is a story for another time. Let us rejoice that the Se5a (finally) WILL get an overhaul as befits her along with the sadly misrepresented N28.

 

Thank you.

 

9 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

But the big winners are for sure the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28: They are not only fast and climb well, they will now be able to hold their own in turns as well.

[Dusty926]

Catchov and Baeumer hit the nail on the head above; For all that is nice to ask for, we need to focus on the realistic and the immediate. The Se5a and N28 especially desperately need FM reworks, and every plane in FC could seriously do with the same attention that they clearly put into the Snipe. Otherwise I worry that the, "FM rework" push may end up having a bunch of extras lumped in and giving more justification to put it off for another year.

[US41_Winslow]

Engine variants for the Camel is an interesting and somewhat convoluted subject.  In terms of performance, Bentley Camels were far and away the best, outperforming all other Camels in all respects.  The next best performer appears to have been the 140 Clerget, which was faster, had a higher ceiling and a slightly better climb than the Le Rhone and a significantly better climb than the 130 Clerget.  However, the 130 Clerget Camel was somewhat faster than the Le Rhone, though its ceiling was lower.

 

Operationally, Bentley Camels were the first to see service, followed by the 130 Clerget with both the RNAS and RFC.  These two variants made up the majority of Camels in 1917 with the Clerget being the more common of the two.  However, due to reliability issues with the Clergets, the RNAS attempted to fully convert to Bentley Camels and the RFC to Le Rhone Camels.  As a result, several RFC squadrons converted from Clerget Camels to Le Rhone Camels at the beginning of 1918, though the Clerget engine were never fully replaced in either the RNAS or RFC and continued to make up a significant portion till the Armistice.  The 140 Clerget engine also became common during the beginning of 1918 and replaced the 130 Clerget in all squadrons that continued to fly Clerget Camels.

 

Regarding the idea that there is such a thing as an early or late Camel, the early Camel would have to be the 130 Clerget and the late Camel the Le Rhone and 140 Clerget.  I have seen several times the idea that the Bentley Camel was the late Camel but, despite it having the best performance, actually saw a longer period of service than any other variant, being at the front from June 1917 to the Armistice.

[US103_Baer]

IDK guys. I'm seeing the expressed views moving slowly away from the credible, objective 'software model' developed by @Holtzauge and published in his book. And back towards individuals pet preferences or assumptions. 

To me this is the fundamental point.

• Is this computer software model the superior, and best available objective method to get the relevant performance data required for a historic aircraft flight sim? To me it is, and i believe it would reinvigorate the Sim, giving it both credibility and sustainability.
• If so then back to Holtzauge's original post. What are the options for getting the FMs aligned with these results?
• If you don't think the model satisfactory and are suggesting alternative aircraft performance, then I'd ask if you've actually read the book. Then to please come up with a data-led methodology which is superior. 

The FM problems apply to all the aircraft we've got model data on, and likely to all the aircraft in the sim, period. Some worse than others of course, but there really are no half measures here. While new engine-variant aircraft models have been suggested, and there are certainly major gaps that those variants need to fill, i don't see how that response is a  solution to the FM problems across the board.

If you introduce an Alb Dva with Merc DIIIau and fix it's FM, you still have to fix the non-DIIIau Alb DVa FM. If you simply replace the existing one you've created another mismatch in its earlier operational period. And how does that fix the N28 or Dr1?

All the aircraft need fixing not a select few that could use engine variants.

An added point is that obviously you can't end up with both unfixed and fixed versions of the same aircraft.

 

How Big A Job Is It?

I don't know exactly, but we have to accept that it's likely a large piece of work, including a fundamental FM reworking of each aircraft. Why?

Because there are known workarounds applied to existing FMs to enable them to get close to performance targets. The SE5a FM update in Sept. 2011 is a very instructional, and I can recommend reading/rereading what AnPetrovich wrote at the time for some insight. https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/22802-se5a-fm-review-fixes/?p=316642

Quick Notes:

• He chose a higher compression Viper. Not the 5.3:1 that ALL the operational Vipers used, but an experimental 5.6:1 CR engine, of which only 19 were produced. The perf targets used were also close to those for the test done using that engine.
• Regarding aerodynamics he states "Many thanks for piecost, who found the polar curve of S.E.Va! So, the aerodynamic performance have also retuned, and now our S.E.Va in RoF has Drag and Lift the same to the real airplane"
• The implication here is that he didn't have correct L/D curves earlier. Not meaning to be overcritical, rather pointing out that there's a good chance many of the aircraft were modeled without such data.
• If playing loose with which engine choice was common in the FM modeling then it points to other issues that an engine change wouldn't solve. It also suggests why many FC/RoF aircraft seem to have the wrong engines in the first place!

 

Suggestion For Getting All FM Fixes Implemented

• Having the FM fixes aligned with actual paid releases might be one way to provide both funding and delivering batches of fixed planes.
• We have at least 2 significant releases coming up. FC3 by end 2023 and FC4 in 2024
• Phase the FM fixes into 2 batches to be delivered in these 2 releases. 
• Yes, i see the flaw. Anyone who doesn't buy FC3 and FC4 would end up getting the fixes for free. Its not perfect, but does provide a funding mechanism, and a prioritised batch release process. So over the short term its cost is contributed to by FC3 and FC4, while over longer term the work will get funded by all purchases and the increased credibility and sustainability of the Sim.
• Engine-variant models could be offered with fixed FMs as additional funding but naturally this only adds to resource squeeze, and the release of these would preferably be aligned with their non-variant Fm fix

 

Too big a dream? Fair comment,  though honestly at one stage getting the wing DM fixed seemed like that.

Its 2023 and we now have a credible, objective model that everyone can get onboard with. We can, and should have, better than decades-old FMs, workarounds, and mismatches. I'm sure the Devs would like that too.

Let's keep trying to find constructive ways to make it happen.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by US103_Baer

[Holtzauge]

 

@=IRFC=Hellbender:Yes, the ceiling for Albatros D.Va with the Merceded D.IIIaü engine will of course improve. OTOH, it looks like I may have been a bit optimistic in my book for the standard D.IIIa engine, so right now the added delta with the aü engine is not looking that large at the moment. But theD.IIIa/ aü power analysis on my part is still work in progress so we will have to see where that lands.

 

About the 9000 m ceiling for the Fokker D.VIIF:  I still just don’t see that happening: We have pretty good data on the BMW engine and it just can’t produce enough power at that altitude to support a standard T/O weight D.VIIF. Now a stripped down “demo” variant with minimal fuel , no guns and ammo flown by a fly-bantam weight pilot in shorts, then maybe. But a full T/O weight D.VIIF? I would very much like to see that test report. 

 

Finally, thanks for the reference to the US gripes about the N28>SPAD conversion. That was exactly what I was looking for! And if anyone has more info, keep it coming!

 

@ST_Catchov: My hat comes off to you Sir: Very much the gentleman as always, and as per your trademark style, you eloquently present the undisputed facts without having to resort to vulgarities like nerfed and the such.

 

@US103_Baer: I think you summarized the situation very well. We have to look at all the data out there and decide for ourselves what we think about it. I’m not claiming my model is perfect. No model is. But I do believe it stands up to scrutiny. In addition, I have taken great pains to explain in detail all the how’s and why’s in my book and why I have modeled the way I have with the caveat that I’m open to revise my opinion if new data emerges.

 

In addition, thanks for linking to that thread where AnPetrovich discusses tuning of the S.E.5a FM. I don’t know which one he decided was the definitive one, but there is in fact a large spread in the data even from British RM sources to choose from which kind of highlights the problem.  Below is a compilation of drag polars from a user in The Aerodrome forum which kind of highlights the problem. This thread in which AnPetrovich lets us see that glimpse of the inner workings of the Il-2 FM also sheds some light on how much work tuning the in-game FM’s is I think. And while I can agree with the sentiment that some have expressed here that this should be fixed in already released content at no extra charge, I have a hard time seeing that done without the ideas on financing that @US103_Baer and @=IRFC=Gascan et al have put forward.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Holtzauge

[Chill31]

On 4/13/2023 at 9:36 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

For sure you right. In  the game I  fly Camel in multiplayer environment and I only turn this beast using rudder, aileron are not for that. This  game have it done right. Strong legs, not arms are needed ?  Btw in most furballs speeds are not high so all ranger of control surfaces deflection should be available for pilot. The elevator should  not be  limited like in central plenes, just pull to belly don't mind you will not stall even if you do it violently,  that what I see not right. 

?

At 110 mph, a Camel has very high control forces.  2 hands required! 

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

It seems logical based on @US103_Baer well laid out plan, that the engine variants FOLLOW the FM fix.  I've shared this in other conversations with testers, as there seems to be a enthusiastic 'rush' to push forward on development of the engine variants, which while nice, and plugging those gaps mentioned above, really have no possibility of being done correctly until the FM is fixed and stabilized.  Otherwise, it will be putting the proverbial cart in front of the horse (which I guess is actually what is being suggested as the proper course of action, if one thinks about it).

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, J5_Baeumer said:

It seems logical based on @US103_Baer well laid out plan, that the engine variants FOLLOW the FM fix.  I've shared this in other conversations with testers, as there seems to be a enthusiastic 'rush' to push forward on development of the engine variants, which while nice, and plugging those gaps mentioned above, really have no possibility of being done correctly until the FM is fixed and stabilized.  Otherwise, it will be putting the proverbial cart in front of the horse (which I guess is actually what is being suggested as the proper course of action, if one thinks about it).

They’ve announced FC3 and a bunch of other RoF aircraft being ported into GBworld.  Most of the current FC player base will be dead before they get around to revising all the WW1 aircraft FMs.  

[ST_Catchov]

On 4/19/2023 at 6:31 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

Most of the current FC player base will be dead before they get around to revising all the WW1 aircraft FMs.  

 

I should think, if they focus on the Se5a and N28 only, as previously stated, and dare I say, bluntly encapsulated by Holtzy, I stand a very good chance of still being vertical. But then, one never knows, does one. It's one of the great mysteries ....

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

I should think, if they focus on the Se5a and N28 only, as previously stated, and dare I say, bluntly encapsulated by Holtzy, I stand a very good chance of still being vertical. But then, one never knows, does one. It's one of the great mysteries ....

It’s really not a mystery.  They’re going to focus on all the stuff that will make them more money.  Then maybe they’ll put a crapload of resources into FM revisions that no one is going to pay for.  Good luck with that.

 

Also, making 2 Entente aircraft significantly better even though the game is already stacked in favor of Entente will definitely be great for MP servers.  

Edited April 20, 2023 by BraveSirRobin

[ZachariasX]

Waiting for your playerbase getting (literally) extinct is probably not an ideal strategy either. Also, for any dev in the business of making flight simulators, making flight models should be on the doable side of the spectrum. I mean, it would help. At least in principle. Also, there have been significant changes in the company structure lately and there is no way for us to know what makes a proposition a viable one for them. "Making money" can mean or imply a lot of things, just ask the Zuck.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Waiting for your playerbase getting (literally) extinct is probably not an ideal strategy either. 

They not waiting for anyone to die.  They announced FC3 and a bunch of additional planes that have not yet been ported from RoF.  

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They not waiting for anyone to die.  They announced FC3 and a bunch of additional planes that have not yet been ported from RoF.  

It is rather clear that today, we know a great lot more than the devs knew about these kites back then. AnP's detailed writeup about making the SE5a makes that abundantly clear. Not taking this knowledge for a new product (ported or not, it is a new product) requires a rather good explanation, as one has to do the FM's anyway.

 

Then again, if they don't care, they don't care.

[BraveSirRobin]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is rather clear that today, we know a great lot more than the devs knew about these kites back then. AnP's detailed writeup about making the SE5a makes that abundantly clear. Not taking this knowledge for a new product (ported or not, it is a new product) requires a rather good explanation, as one has to do the FM's anyway.

 

Then again, if they don't care, they don't care.

Just stop.  They’re going to make the stuff that makes them money.  Maybe later they’ll do a bunch of stuff for free that makes no money and everybody will complain about, but don’t bet on it.

[Dusty926]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Just stop.  They’re going to make the stuff that makes them money.  Maybe later they’ll do a bunch of stuff for free that makes no money and everybody will complain about, but don’t bet on it.

A product alone does not a sale make; You need a consumer base with some half decent goodwill, especially in a niche genre like this. With tensions running relatively high as they are since the start of 2023, I think it'd serve them well to remedy this like they did the universal yaw instability that was in the game before. Otherwise, not only is it ignoring people's requests, it's also ignoring what the game markets itself as: A simulator.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Maybe later they’ll do a bunch of stuff for free

I am not under the impression anyone is doing any favors here to anyone. The bar of what is acceptable in flight sim is not where it was 10 years ago. We can thank Asobo to make in plain evident to anyone. And I don‘t think cheap labor and not caring about what one is selling is gonna compensate for that.

 

None of us knows what makes how much money and how much they have at hand, especially since they were bought up snd given the circumstances, so it is pointless exercise for us to reason about it.

 

In this sense, I‘m not asking for anything. It is up to them to provide a product worth buying. If they themselves think it‘s not worth it, why should I think that?

[Holtzauge]

Returning to the subject at hand: While most of us want realism whatever the results may be, I realize now that so far in this thread it has been pretty lopsided:

 

The simulation data I have presented up till now suggests that the Nieuport N28 and S.E.5a should improve quite a lot, while the Albatros D.Va should be dialed back in terms of turn. So a win for Entente, but a loss for Central.

 

However, I have now modeled the Pfalz D.XII with the BMW engine as well, and in terms of turn performance, the D.XII looks like it will be competitive with all Entente scouts at higher altitudes, and also at low level barring the Camel. In an addition to this, while being a bit slower than the Fokker D.VIIF, it will still match it in climb and ceiling. So quite a potent machine indeed. However, I have not actually measured the D.XII turn times in-game, but I have gotten the impression that it’s not much of a turn fighter in FC?

 

But if someone here in the forum can volunteer to measure the Pfalz D.XII’s best turn times at 1 and 5 Km altitude (full fuel and ammo load) and post that here, I will come back with the numbers predicted in C++. Since I have not actually measured these in-game I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the Albatros D.Va’s loss will be the Pfalz D.XII’s gain.  

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Returning to the subject at hand: While most of us want realism whatever the results may be, I realize now that so far in this thread it has been pretty lopsided:

 

The simulation data I have presented up till now suggests that the Nieuport N28 and S.E.5a should improve quite a lot, while the Albatros D.Va should be dialed back in terms of turn. So a win for Entente, but a loss for Central.

 

However, I have now modeled the Pfalz D.XII with the BMW engine as well, and in terms of turn performance, the D.XII looks like it will be competitive with all Entente scouts at higher altitudes, and also at low level barring the Camel. In an addition to this, while being a bit slower than the Fokker D.VIIF, it will still match it in climb and ceiling. So quite a potent machine indeed. However, I have not actually measured the D.XII turn times in-game, but I have gotten the impression that it’s not much of a turn fighter in FC?

 

But if someone here in the forum can volunteer to measure the Pfalz D.XII’s best turn times at 1 and 5 Km altitude (full fuel and ammo load) and post that here, I will come back with the numbers predicted in C++. Since I have not actually measured these in-game I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the Albatros D.Va’s loss will be the Pfalz D.XII’s gain.  

Did you model the DXII or the DXIIF? The in game version has the BMW version, however many sources suggest that the majority of airframes were given the Merc Diiiau, with BMWs being prioritised for the DVIIs.

 

Grosz in the Windsock file has 80 odd BMWs going to Pfalz through October compared to thrice that for Fokker, and there are other mentions of BMWs being stripped and put into Fokkers at the front.

 

Jack Herris gives 170 DXIIs at the front in August, with Grosz quoting around 560 by the end of the war; the DXIIF would have been relatively rare compared to the Merc-powered version - maybe 1/5 at best?

 

As for performance, the BMW might have been a decent plane - sources suggest that version could match the DVIIF in most respects except turn, but was a better diver - however there is less praise for the DXIIau. The view from Jasta 71 makes interesting reading:
 

 

 

This is another example of some FC planes having late war vs earlier engine types which impact gameplay and balancing. I’d rather have the Merc DXII first before anything else - not to mention the Merc diiiau DVII - and fix the dive bug we have currently with our DXIIF.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by US103_Rummell
Additional sources added

[Holtzauge]

For sure: There was never enough BMW engines to go around and there were probably not that many available in the D.XII production line. However, what we have in-game is the BMW IIIa engine Pfalz D.XII so this is also what I have modeled.

 

Granted, the Mercedes D.IIIa and D.IIIaü powered Pfalz D.XII were just like the Fokker D.VII and Albatros D.Va with those engines underpowered, which we may see if those are ever introduced as engine options in-game.

 

Then when it comes to numbers in service and how to populate the MP servers with suitable plane sets, that is another matter altogether on which I will take a pass. However, the point I wanted to make was that a FM revision of the BMW powered Pfalz D.XII should lead to a pretty capable machine from the performance perspective. 

[No.23_Starling]

59 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

For sure: There was never enough BMW engines to go around and there were probably not that many available in the D.XII production line. However, what we have in-game is the BMW IIIa engine Pfalz D.XII so this is also what I have modeled.

 

Granted, the Mercedes D.IIIa and D.IIIaü powered Pfalz D.XII were just like the Fokker D.VII and Albatros D.Va with those engines underpowered, which we may see if those are ever introduced as engine options in-game.

 

Then when it comes to numbers in service and how to populate the MP servers with suitable plane sets, that is another matter altogether on which I will take a pass. However, the point I wanted to make was that a FM revision of the BMW powered Pfalz D.XII should lead to a pretty capable machine from the performance perspective. 

If you read the sources Grosz quotes there’s general agreement that the BMW version wasn’t far off the DVIIF in performance. Just a shame that so few had the BMW.

 

The in-game plane right now climbs like the DVIIF and has good high alt speed but turns like how the Merc version is described by Jasta 71; soggy and very poor at maintaining a turn. Worse, it has a nose-up bug ported over from RoF where if you dive it too hard the nose forces you up without any chance of negative G correction.

[Holtzauge]

IMHO, the first step on the Maslow’s needs ladder for FM’s is just to get basic aircraft characteristics like speed, climb and turn performance right and frankly just doing that will be a mouthful I think.

 

Handling characteristics like controls being soggy or having unbalanced and/or high stick forces etc. would be very difficult to model with any fairness for all of the aircraft we have in-game since it would require enormous amounts of work first of all just to find out, let alone model.

 

So I think the best way to do this is in steps: And the first one is just to get the basic performance relationships between the aircraft right and ideally also to get them as close as possible to the right absolute values. In addition to this, remove any strange phenomena like the pitch up in a dive for the Pfalz D.XII or any other handling quirks across the board for all aircraft.

 

When we have all that bagged (correct speed, climb and turn characteristics), then we can start worrying about modeling handling characteristics. But by that time, hell may well be a very cold place indeed. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Holtzauge I  recently flesh out this recording of Andy Sephton about flying old crates , funny how he  mentioned properly flying a Spowitch Pup is using the rudder to turn and ailerons to keep ball centered, talk about operating the rotary engine is also a gem itself. If you don't hear that lecture, it's worth to listen.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-classic-lecture-series-flying-historical-aircraft-by-andy-sephton/

[Holtzauge]

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

@Holtzauge I  recently flesh out this recording of Andy Sephton about flying old crates , funny how he  mentioned properly flying a Spowitch Pup is using the rudder to turn and ailerons to keep ball centered, talk about operating the rotary engine is also a gem itself. If you don't hear that lecture, it's worth to listen.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-classic-lecture-series-flying-historical-aircraft-by-andy-sephton/

 

Thanks for the tip! And yes, it was interesting to hear about how much he emphasized rudder and the adverse yaw effects of these old kites. I also enjoyed his description of how a rotary works and the Westland Lysander flight characteristics. Only thing that raised my eyebrows was his answer to why they built the triplanes: Because the extra wing gives more lift and turning was what it was all about back then......Pilots.......

[LufberyJAA]

On 4/14/2023 at 9:44 AM, Holtzauge said:

Speaking of this, IIRC then quite a few US pilots were actually reluctant to switch from the N28 to the SPAD: And can anyone help me with references? I need names, units and book/articles to reference. Who/When/where, that type of info and where it's from.

 

As usual, I'm coming late to this thread, but I can provide some info and references. 

 

There's an old thread from the Aerodrome Forum here: Was the Nieuport 28 a bad aircraft? [Archive] - The Aerodrome Forum

 

It gives some good information with names and squadrons, etc. As usual, I recommend Hambly's book on the Nieuport 28. "Up and At 'Em" by Harold Hartney is another good one that puts the Nieuport 28 in a much better light than Rickenbacker's "Fighting the Flying Circus" (which is a great book too).

[GOZR]

Yes all the planes feel so similar.. same for ww2. Alas. We need far more work into it and weather physics with it..