Dev blog #361: Flying Circus development news

[Holtzauge]

21 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

All, I now have my hands on the Peter Cooksley book on the DH2. A couple of interesting insights, providing he is correct.

 

On the engine, the main issue of cylinder ejection seems to have been present only in early types. Cooksely writes: "The reputation for unreliability gained by these motors was not entirely merited since many of those installed in early machines had re-bored cylinders in an effort to increase their power... This danger would probably not have been present on new engines."

 

The mystery surrounding the fuel tanks is also explained with data on weights @Holtzauge. He tells us that: "Fuel tanks were mounted within the nacelle behind the pilot. The fuel tank held approximately 20.2 US gallons and was supplemented by a 5.75 gallon gravity feed tank mounted beneath the upper wing section... The unarmored gravity tanks were later moved above or below the outer wing on [the upper wing centre section]. Additionally, later production machines were given a new main fuel tank with capacity increased to 26 gallons." I think this might be where the confusion is arising - Cooksley is suggesting that all versions carried a total of 26 gallons of fuel, but the latter version could carry 31+ gallons. This could be our "long range" version included in RoF.

 

He also gives data for the 100hp Gnome version and the 110hp le Rhone version. It seems not too many had the latter and the increased weight didn't improve performance. His loaded weight is 1441 lb for the Gnome engine. @Holtzauge does the British Airboard data indicate the engine and fuel tank configuration for their tests?

 

Sorry that this isn't helping on the data reliability front!

 

 

The Air Board data is for the DH2 with a Monosoupape engine at a T/O weight of 1697 lb. The high weight is explained by the “crew” column that states 360 lb instead of the usual 180 lb for a single seater. Weight breakdown: Empty 943, fuel & oil 238, military load 56 and crew 360 lb. But this only totals 1597 lb so something is off here as well…

 

Another strange thing is that this decidedly heavy 2-man DH2 according to the Air Board data climbs to 6500 ft in 12 min while in the RoF manual, the 1-man DH2 with a T/O weight of 653 kg (1438 lb) needs all of 15 min 22 s to reach 2000 m (6562 ft).

 

Further, the Air Board data credits the 2-man DH2 with a speed of 86 mph at 6500 ft while the RoF manual says 118 km/h (73 mph) at 2000 m for the in-game single seat version.

 

This was why I asked earlier on where the developers got their tuning data from? Maybe it’s stated in the RoF info page but since getting a new computer I can no longer fire up RoF so I have no idea what data they are referencing for the DH2 in-game (if any)?

 

PS: I do think the data you posted is helping on the reliability front because the more the merrier. But I still can’t see how we can have a “long range” DH2 in RoF that only weights 1438 lb and packs only 26 gallons of fuel according to the RoF manual?

 

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

13 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Please, do not exclude the Se5a!

I’ve come to believe that the S.E.5a’s energy retention is probably more realistic than that of the SPAD. Whatever is wrong with that machine right now is probably fixed by having less maneuverable but faster and better climbing Albs.

[Avimimus]

If I had two sources, and one of which claimed the D.H.2 was a two-seat design - I'd probably view it as the less reliable of the two sources.

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:27 PM, Holtzauge said:

I've actually written a book about WW1 aircraft performance

Just ordered a copy. Looks fascinating 👍

Great update. My misgivings about GB’s future appear to have been greatly exaggerated and I am so happy to be wrong.

 

Can we just all agree that we need a BE. and a German and French equivalent? Otherwise the core of WW 1 aviation is missing a huge slice.

Edited April 20, 2024 by EAF19_Marsh

[No.23_Starling]

15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

If I had two sources, and one of which claimed the D.H.2 was a two-seat design - I'd probably view it as the less reliable of the two sources.

The DH1 and DH1A were both two seaters. They might have misnamed the type as I can’t find mention of a 2 seat DH2. The weights are different again though according to Cooksley:

[Holtzauge]

I don’t think the DH2 is misnamed in the Air Board data since it actually has an entry for the DH1 as well: In fact it lists exactly the same numbers as Cooksley: 120 hp Beardmore engine and 90 mph at 6500 ft and 2340 lb T/O weight. In addition, I would be more vary of books publishing data with no source stated or with circular referencing rather than the AB data which I would be surprised to find faults in given that it was published by the British Air Ministry itself.

 

@EAF19_Marsh: Hope you'll like it! And if you have any questions about things in the book, please either PM me here or send me an e-mail via the contact form on my homepage Military Aircraft Performance.

 

 

Correction: I now see Cooksley says the 90 mph for the DH1 are for SL, while AB data says its for 6500 ft.

Edited April 20, 2024 by Holtzauge

[BornToBattle]

I’m so glad to see this fantastic era of flight continuing onward! Absolutely crazy to think about flying these machines IRL let alone in a combat situation. Flying these in VR hanging out in the wind gives one a taste of what it must have been like. Love it!

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Hope you'll like it! And if you have any questions about things in the book, please either PM me here or send me an e-mail via the contact form on my homepage Military Aircraft Performance.

Will do. Says to arrive in a week or so.

 

I had no idea there was a 2-seater DH.1! Great info around here 😎

[Holtzauge]

20 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I had no idea there was a 2-seater DH.1! Great info around here 😎

 

Well the only thing we know so far is that Air Board data says 360 lb in the "crew" column. Maybe it was Daniel Lambert who took it for a spin?

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Holtzauge

[No.23_Starling]

5 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Well the only thing we know so far is that Air Board data says 360 lb in the "crew" column. Maybe it was Daniel Lambert who took it for a spin?

 

Bruce also mentions that the DH2 was later used as an advanced trainer. Maybe that was the dual control version? FYI here is Bruce’s data:
 

[Holtzauge]

34 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Bruce also mentions that the DH2 was later used as an advanced trainer. Maybe that was the dual control version? FYI here is Bruce’s data:

 

That may very well explain it. Also makes sense from the perspective of what to do with kites that are no longer competitive as front line single seaters: Convert them to trainers and maybe even some to carry an instructor.

 

Edit: The more I think about it, the more sense the 2-seat trainer theory makes: In the crew column weights of 170, 180, 320 and 360 appear for other aircraft as well. And while the AB-document itself is undated, it covers airplanes up to 1936 so if there ever was a 2-seat DH2 trainer, it's not unlikely that that was what they had data for when they put the table together in 1936 or later.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Holtzauge

[Avimimus]

That is a very cool possibility! If so, it is an interesting find!

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Well the only thing we know so far is that Air Board data says 360 lb in the "crew" column. Maybe it was Daniel Lambert who took it for a spin?

That’s double my weight and I’m roughly medium build so that is either one very solid pilot, a pilot in light mech armour or 2 guys squashed into the airframe.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I’m inclined to follow @LukeFF’s advice here and let the past be when it comes to old RoF FM data. They did their best with what they had at the time, given the game’s situation at the time. We have a new FM for the DH2 which will bring us closer to its historical counterpart, and that is exciting news all by itself. FC is turning even more into a serious simulator.

 

Here’s to many more FM reviews! 🍻

[EAF19_Marsh]

*cough* BE.2 *cough*.

 

Just sayin’. I cannot be the only utter masochist around here, Shirley?

[Majpalmer]

*cough* BE.2 *cough*.

 

Just sayin’. I cannot be the only utter masochist around here, Shirley?

 

And imagine the excitement of taking to the air in the fighter variant, the B.E. 12!

[EAF19_Marsh]

13 minutes ago, Majpalmer said:

And imagine the excitement of taking to the air in the fighter variant, the B.E. 12!

They see me rollin’….

[JFM]

24 minutes ago, Majpalmer said:

*cough* BE.2 *cough*.

 

Just sayin’. I cannot be the only utter masochist around here, Shirley?

 

And imagine the excitement of taking to the air in the fighter variant, the B.E. 12!

I'd fly that in a second. Love them. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Majpalmer said:

*cough* BE.2 *cough*.

 

Just sayin’. I cannot be the only utter masochist around here, Shirley?

 

And imagine the excitement of taking to the air in the fighter variant, the B.E. 12!

Pah!

 

You’ve got your old Webley revolver, innit? That and your undying love for King and Country. There’s a good lad!

[EAF19_Marsh]

25 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

You’ve got your old Webley revolver, innit? That and your undying love for King and Country. There’s a good lad!

That and my faithful carrier pigeon, Speckled Jim.

[ST_Catchov]

Let's talk wing-warpers. Everybody knows the incoming E.III is a wing-warper, a method used for lateral control. However, as a curious chap, I'm finding It difficult to find any blueprints or drawings as to how the Eindecker's warping mechanism actually worked. Did it flex the whole wing or just the outer edges for instance?

 

Other notable wing-warpers as potential FC candidates ....

 

 

 

Early Albatros(s) - not required for FC but an interesting example. Note the flying helmet.

 

 

Sopwith Tabloid - Hydro version (why the Channel map is a must).

 

 

Caudron G4 - Twin-engined French bomber.

 

 

Morane Bullet - note deflector plates on prop.

 

 

[Canvas25]

Is that an early pitot tube on that early Albatros?

[Enceladus828]

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

 

Sopwith Tabloid - Hydro version (why the Channel map is a must).

And because FC has come so far that it only makes sense for the Channel Map to be added. That will make me get FC2 so I can do cross channel bombing raids in the HP 400 and Gotha.

[EAF19_Marsh]

People are now looking at my strangely after an involuntary and childish gasp of excitement at those pics 😬

 

Shame about the RFC’s aversion to monoplanes, because a developed Moraine Bullet design could have been a great aircraft.

[Dauntless]

https://www.theaerodrome.com/index.php

[US103_Baer]

@Holtzauge DH2 Rise Of Flight References and Specs.

 

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

By the time you got to 4k m had you not used half your fuel?

[Holtzauge]

4 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

 

 

Thanks for posting those references @US103_Baer: The more data the better even if to me it’s still not totally clear which are the more representative numbers though…..

 

Then it looks like there were no special documents referenced in RoF either, and it was just data from a few books after all. Granted, some Windsock and other books do tell where the data comes from, but in many others it just seems to be the same old numbers so the question is if it’s simply not the same data repeated in many places?

 

I wonder if someone has those three books RoF references and can see what aircraft data and numbers they contain? Are they the same or do they differ?

[ST_Catchov]

12 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Shame about the RFC’s aversion to monoplanes ....

 

With good reason too, the vast majority of air crashes today are monoplanes. I've never trusted them.

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

With good reason too, the vast majority of air crashes today are monoplanes. I've never trusted them.

 

I cannot fault your logic.

[ST_Catchov]

14 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Thanks for posting those references @US103_Baer: The more data the better even if to me it’s still not totally clear which are the more representative numbers though…..

 

Then it looks like there were no special documents referenced in RoF either, and it was just data from a few books after all. Granted, some Windsock and other books do tell where the data comes from, but in many others it just seems to be the same old numbers so the question is if it’s simply not the same data repeated in many places?

 

I wonder if someone has those three books RoF references and can see what aircraft data and numbers they contain? Are they the same or do they differ?

 

Perhaps we should just wait until the DH2 is released and see how she flies without getting too pre-anal. I'm sure the inevitable DH2 FM review thread will ultimately thrash out any concerns, should there be any. But at this time, it seems to me the devs are heading in the right direction. It's an arousing moment.

 

[ST_gary62]

My computer was fried during a hurricane about 3 years ago I sure do miss flying the skies and being shot down 😳

[Holtzauge]

7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Perhaps we should just wait until the DH2 is released and see how she flies without getting too pre-anal. I'm sure the inevitable DH2 FM review thread will ultimately thrash out any concerns, should there be any. But at this time, it seems to me the devs are heading in the right direction. It's an arousing moment.

 

Interesting what kind of analogies are at the forefront of your mind @ST_Catchov! Not that I’m judging mind you! 

 

Jokes aside: I think providing as much input as possible before the die is cast is the best way because elementary human psychology tells us it’s much harder to change something you’ve done based on critique after the fact as opposed to being provided information beforehand which saves you from digging trenches to defend a position that proves untenable anyway in the long run. Alas, I can’t say that I’m immune to this sort of behavior myself, but maybe our developers are more saintly? In that case I see no problem if they just slap something together now because we can always whine about it later.

[No.23_Starling]

Data quoted in the Airco book by Mick Davis. He doesn’t give his source though it’s an excellent book on Airco.

 

[Avimimus]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:37 PM, ST_Catchov said:

Sopwith Tabloid - Hydro version (why the Channel map is a must).

 

Caudron G4 - Twin-engined French bomber.

 

I might amend that to be Caudron G.4 twin engined two seat observer, single seater, escort fighter, bomber, sturmovik...

 

As for the Tabloid - the Sopwith Baby is pretty similar development but was repurposed from being a fighter to a Zeppelin interceptor, to a naval patrol and ground attack aircraft... it carried a considerably better armament and could stand up a bit more in performance to the Albatros W.4 etc.

[ST_Catchov]

I have to admit I'm a fan of salaciously unclothed wheels allowing the viewer to admire the alluring nakedness of the spokes. It's a good look. Note how pleasing it is in this example of the Sopwith Pup. I wonder if the devs will include this as a field mod in the upcoming FC4?

 

 

But, as with many things, there is a downside unfortunately. The devs would be well aware of it, and I'm sure, incorporate it in their FM. It's called drag, and it's a real downer, which accounts for the popularity of the clothed variety. Still, I live in hope that the devs may consider it.

 

It is all laid out very well in this excellent manual written by Capt. Horatio C. Barber (RFC), first published in 1917. Drag of all types is explained succinctly although Horatio refers to drag as 'drift'. Perhaps the term drag had an unsavoury element in those days of questionable music hall performers.

 

Anway, it's a highly recommended volume and it's only a shilling.

 

 

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I have to admit I'm a fan of salaciously unclothed wheels allowing the viewer to admire the alluring nakedness of the spokes. It's a good look. Note how pleasing it is in this example of the Sopwith Pup. I wonder if the devs will include this as a field mod in the upcoming FC4?

 

Didn't Rise of Flight have open spoked wheels for the Nieuport N.17?

[Zooropa_Fly]

Just on the Russian N17.

And of course the very sexy Sikorsky 'flying pram' S16.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:30 PM, Avimimus said:

That said, we also see a lot of single-seaters being shot down by Airco D.H.2 aces - although that might have been due to the fact that enemy single-seaters were attacking them (i.e. initiating combat rather than disengaging) and about half of the enemy two seaters were too fast to catch.

 

I looked this up and I have to concede that I underestimated the frequency of combat between Eindeckers and Entente single seaters.  The vast majority of German victories were still over two seaters through the service life of the Eindecker, but there were some victories over single seaters.  Eindeckers, not surprisingly, seemed to get the worst of it when they tangled with Nieuports.  Fighting an N11 would not have been fun, never mind an N17.  

[jollyjack]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:52 AM, IckyATLAS said:

I would love an improvement on the map region that correspond to the desolate war zone. It is such unrealistic that it would really need improvement.

I do not know if it is a graphic engine problem or limitation but that large part of the map is totally an immersion killer for me.

I hope there is something planned to improve this.

 

There are 2 mods i oft tended to use: No dummy explosions (still works, think i made it once probably with someone's help LoL),

and arras pre/post war from Liz Lemon. Latter seems to work on the old FC1 map area only and needs a fix.

If you want them i'll post a link here for download.