In-game Airco DH 2 & Albatros D.II sustained turn rates compared to C++ simulations

[Holtzauge]

Below is a figure showing the relative turn performance of the Airco DH 2 & Albatros D.II at an altitude of 500 and 3500 m based on C++ simulations.

 

For those that don’t have the background about the C++ simulations and how the models used have been verified, I suggest reading this thread from the beginning.

 

I thought it could be interesting to show not only the top turn rate numbers, but also how they compare with speed.

 

First of all (and not surprisingly) we can conclude that the stringbag does not like going fast, and as long as the Albatros pilot keeps his speed up, he will not only climb better, but turn better as well.

 

And given that the Albatros is so much faster than the Airco, the only thing the DH 2 has up its sleeve is its advantage in slow speed turns.

 

And this could theoretically make for an interesting matchup:  The classic “angles” versus “energy” dogfight.

 

However, it seems that in-game, the Albatros D.II beats the DH 2 in turns as well. And not by a small margin either: AFAIK the in-game Albatros turn time at 1 km altitude is around 14 s while it takes the DH 2 all of 17 s.

 

However, my C++ simulations indicate exactly the opposite: The DH 2 should have a turn time of around 14 s while the Albatros D.II should need in the order of 17 s, i.e. pretty much mirrored results.

 

So in summary, this means that the in-game DH 2 is pretty much useless since the in-game Albatros D.II is superior in speed, climb and turns.

 

I would argue that this is one of the most important things to fix given that unless this is done, about the only thing the in-game DH 2 is useful for, is to sit in the hangar, or for some sightseeing in Paris as long as there are no Jerries around.

 

 

[Flashy]

I cant say I am at all surprised, and I was disappointed to see we again got the "long range" Dh2 with the stupid drag-inducing wingtop fuel tank and 4 hour endurance.. all we ever wanted was the normal Dh2..

BUT, we know the Albatros FM's in this game are very optimistic so, @Holtzauge, how does the dh2 compare to the E.III? I think that would be a much more telling result..

[ST_Catchov]

I always thought the DII was superior to the DH2 in climb, speed and power, but not in turns. Entente shafted again. What is it with this uber Albie thing? What of the EIII comparison? The DH2 along with the N11 effectively ended the Eindecker's dominance. That would be interesting.

[Holtzauge]

I don't have the Fokker E.III modeled. I did this comparison because I always thought it was suspect that MvR managed to out-turn Lanoe Hawker, and as I understand it forced him to fly straight long enough to shoot him down. My personal theory is that Hawker's engine must have been underperforming that day, which as I understand it, was not that uncommon with the DH 2's Monosoupape. Who knows? Maybe his engine was fine when he took off, but then chose to give up on him at the absolutely worst of times.

 

Anyway, whatever the E.III's turn time is, I think that the DH 2's turn time of 17 s when it should do 14 s just makes it useless.

 

It's a bit like having a simulator in which the Bf 109 is not only faster and climbs better than the Spitfire, but out-turns it as well. 

[Flashy]

2 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

I don't have the Fokker E.III modeled. I did this comparison because I always thought it was suspect that MvR managed to out-turn Lanoe Hawker, and as I understand it forced him to fly straight long enough to shoot him down. My personal theory is that Hawker's engine must have been underperforming that day, which as I understand it, was not that uncommon with the DH 2's Monosoupape. Who knows? Maybe his engine was fine when he took off, but then chose to give up on him at the absolutely worst of times.

 

Anyway, whatever the E.III's turn time is, I think that the DH 2's turn time of 17 s when it should do 14 s just makes it useless.

 

It's a bit like having a simulator in which the Bf 109 is not only faster and climbs better than the Spitfire, but out-turns it as well. 

ah thats a pity, because that is the true opponent of the Dh2. Btw, where did you hear that MvR was able to out-turn Lanoe Hawker? The account of that fight (by MvR himself) said that they fought for a long time (as long as 30 minutes maybe) and neither pilot could get much of an advantage over the other. In the end, Hawker tried to withdraw because he was being blown further over German lines by the wind, and he was running out of fuel, and the faster Albatros was able to catch him and shoot him down. But I would be very interested in any source which claims the Albatros could out turn the DH2... I have never heard that

[ST_Catchov]

5 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

It's a bit like having a simulator in which the Bf 109 is not only faster and climbs better than the Spitfire, but out-turns it as well. 

 

A perfect analogy.

 

I didn't think Manny out-turned Hawker. He just stayed above him with superior speed and climb. Height always wins right. And slowly wore him down with potshots until Hawker did a runner and had his brains blown out.

 

[Flashy]

Even without the E.III data though, you data seems much more in keeping with historical accounts on the Dh2's performance that what the game is giving us @Holtzauge. If the turn rate is indeed out by around 21% (if my maths is correct), then that would account for the poor performance of the Dh2 against pretty much everything in game.. 21% is a massive difference for planes of this era..

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Flashy

[Holtzauge]

5 hours ago, Flashy said:

ah thats a pity, because that is the true opponent of the Dh2. Btw, where did you hear that MvR was able to out-turn Lanoe Hawker? The account of that fight (by MvR himself) said that they fought for a long time (as long as 30 minutes maybe) and neither pilot could get much of an advantage over the other. In the end, Hawker tried to withdraw because he was being blown further over German lines by the wind, and he was running out of fuel, and the faster Albatros was able to catch him and shoot him down. But I would be very interested in any source which claims the Albatros could out turn the DH2... I have never heard that

 

5 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

A perfect analogy.

 

I didn't think Manny out-turned Hawker. He just stayed above him with superior speed and climb. Height always wins right. And slowly wore him down with potshots until Hawker did a runner and had his brains blown out.

 

 

Check out Gunning for the Red Baron" by Leon Bennett. In it he claims they entered a turning battle at higher altitudes that ended at low altitude with Hawker having to break off because he was being out-turned. His brother and biographer (Hawker's), speculates that this was because of a known engine problem Hawker knew about beforehand but decided to fly anyway. Bennet on the other hand believes Hawker's engine croaked on the way down so he did not have rated power at low altitude leading to his demise.

 

But this is not my area of expertise, and there are those more well read up on this battle like @US103_Rummell so it would be interesting to hear his input on that.

 

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, and the reason I started this thread was because I think the DH 2 and Albatros D.II are good examples of why it's important to keep the flight models with the developers stated goal of 5% to known data.

 

But if one aircraft is 21% better than it should then this is bad enough by itself, but if another aircraft it was known to combat is 21% worse than it should then this combined falls somewhat short of expectations doesn't it?

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge]

3 hours ago, Flashy said:

I cant say I am at all surprised, and I was disappointed to see we again got the "long range" Dh2 with the stupid drag-inducing wingtop fuel tank and 4 hour endurance.. all we ever wanted was the normal Dh2..

 

Just to confirm: In the Rise of Flight manual, the DH 2's T/O weight is 653 kg and this is an important number I use in my C++ simulations for calculating the turns. I assume it's the same in FC?

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Holtzauge

[Flashy]

33 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

But if one aircraft is 21% better than it should then this is bad enough by itself, but if another aircraft it was known to combat is 21% worse than it should then this combined falls somewhat short of expectations doesn't it?

 

yes, exactly, these effects can become compounded when BOTH relevant FM's have issues - then you end up with a scenario that doesnt match historical accounts at all.. like we have here..

Is it a lot of work to model the E.III as well? so we can see where that sits on the relative performance list?
 

 

22 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Just to confirm: In the Rise of Flight manual, the DH 2's T/O weight is 653 kg and this is an important number I use in my C++ simulations for calculating the turns. I assume it's the same in FC?

 

I dunno.. I think taking the value from the RoF manual isnt the best source.. where does that manual get its data from? (i.e how reliable is the source?) This is another problem with the closed nature of the FM's in this game.. we have no way of "checking the dev's homework" as it were.. we need to use our own data from known reliable sources.. but where to find that..?

 

EDIT: In this case though, it might not be a bad assumption that the devs are still using the weight from RoF (if indeed the value in the manual came from the devs originally). The plane 3d model hasnt changed (the extra fuel tank is still on the plane) and the devs never mentioned anything about a weight change in the dev diary about the changes to the DH2 FM, so I dont think you are wrong to assume its still the same as RoF..
 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Flashy

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, Flashy said:

I dunno.. I think taking the value from the RoF manual isnt the best source.. where does that manual get its data from? (i.e how reliable is the source?) This is another problem with the closed nature of the FM's in this game.. we have no way of "checking the dev's homework" as it were.. we need to use our own data from known reliable sources.. but where to find that..?

 

EDIT: In this case though, it might not be a bad assumption that the devs are still using the weight from RoF (if indeed the value in the manual came from the devs originally). The plane 3d model hasnt changed (the extra fuel tank is still on the plane) and the devs never mentioned anything about a weight change in the dev diary about the changes to the DH2 FM, so I dont think you are wrong to assume its still the same as RoF..
 

 

The data in the RoF manual vastly underestimates the DH 2's speed and climb performance IMHO so I'm not tuning my model to this data.

 

As tuning data I have instead used Jane's (Fighting Aircraft of WW1) which states max speed 93 mph SL and the climb time to 6500 ft as 8 min 40 s.

 

My model does 92.6 mph SL and takes 8 min 20 s to reach 6500 ft with the same weight as in Jane's which is lower, only 599 kg. But the data I have posted here in this thread is for 653 kg, which I believe is what the game uses.

 

You can see the weight in-game if you have a look at the plane's specification page which also has performance details. However, I don't have FC 4 so I can't check it myself.

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Holtzauge

[No.23_Starling]

@Holtzauge In terms of the Hawker and MvR fight, there's a lot of speculation as to whether the former had engine issues. This was certainly a severe and well-documented problem. Tyrrel Hawker writes in Hawker V.C. that "...in April [1916] the engines gave trouble once in every three flights; in May once every four, in June once in three and a half" etc etc. It seems that many of the cylinders had been rebored meaning that the walls were weak causing them to crack off and fly out, sometimes cutting through the tail booms with fatal results. It was nicknamed "cylindritis", and L. Hawker documents a number of incidents in 24 Squadron.

 

Leon Bennett in Gunning for the Red Baron also speculates that the 30m+ fight could have seen "castor oil droplets coat[ing] valve seats, preventing valve closure, or stuck to cylinder walls, preventing piston rings from sealing". Bennett believes that "Hawker was doomed not by lack of skill or even by his generally inferior aircraft but by a lemon rotary engine". Even so he knew the risk of engine problems and engaged regardless in unfavourable circumstances over enemy lines. Attack everything, indeed.

 

@Flashy As for the performance, we find many eyewitness accounts of the DH2 being hopeless in climbing with the DII and the Albatross being able to stay above and dictate terms of combat. A note in the squadron diary from 22nd November states: "During the whole of the patrol there were twenty or thirty H.A. overhead, but the D.H.'s could not reach them and they refused to come down and give fight". Both T. Hawker and Bennett conclude that the D.H.2 was the better turner. T. Hawker writes of his brother's final fight: "The D.H.2 could still turn more sharply and thus keep out of the line of fire of the Albatros, which however, owing to its better climb and speed, could always stay safely above". He also comments on the fact that the Jasta had captured and tested a D.H.2 some time before and knew how to engage it.

 

Mr @=IRFC=Hellbent puts it very well in that if the D.H.2 couldn't even out turn the Albatros the fight with Hawker and MvR would have lasted 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

 

Huge thanks to Mr Holtz for these models. I do hope the developers use this as input for their Albatros series FM revisions, and to take a second look at the D.H.2. As it is today it's a fun match for the EIII but little else.

 

 

[Holtzauge]

@US103_Rummell my dear fellow, that was very informative. You are truly a walking encyclopedia! 

[BMA_Hellbender]

@US103_Rummell Well, the Airco DH.2 turns slightly better now and is also faster than it is in RoF. I need to take a look and see by just how much when I get home. I also need to confirm whether or not the DH.2 now has every advantage over the E.III. As an aside: it’s too bad the E.III doesn’t have a B.E.2c or Caudron (G.3?) to shoot at—the F.E.2b is just a little bit much for it.

 

Anyway his is, in fact, really good news. Since the devs are looking at the Albs, and the Albatros D.II is both the best turning Albatros at low speed (thanks to its full biplane design) and the slowest one of the bunch, then we can already deduce that not a single Albatros should be able to outturn the Airco DH.2 at low speed with the smallest possible turn radius (turn rate could still be better at high speed). It’s the one to “not beat”.

 

It also means that if the Albatros D.II turns worse than the Airco DH.2, it needs to become significantly faster than it is now. I’m hoping for 175km/h—which would also make it marginally faster than the Pup. It’s currently dead meat against it.
 

It almost automatically leads to an Albatros D.III, D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa with a top speed of ~185km/h, and a hypothetical Albatros D.Va 200hp (modeled similarly to the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp) with a top speed of ~195km/h, that has a speed advantage over the Camel, without having a turn advantage (or any advantage for that matter) over the S.E.5a Viper. And just like that everything begins to make sense.

 

One can dream.

[Flashy]

11 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

 

@Flashy As for the performance, we find many eyewitness accounts of the DH2 being hopeless in climbing with the DII and the Albatross being able to stay above and dictate terms of combat. .... "The D.H.2 could still turn more sharply and thus keep out of the line of fire of the Albatros, which however, owing to its better climb and speed, could always stay safely above".

 

Mr @=IRFC=Hellbent puts it very well in that if the D.H.2 couldn't even out turn the Albatros the fight with Hawker and MvR would have lasted 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

 

Thanks for you reply @US103_Rummell. This is all very good information, and seems to be in agreement with all the other information we find on these two planes - the D.II was faster and could climb better, but the DH2 could turn better (more maneuverable), so could hold its own against the D.II if flown well, although the D.II would always be in control of the  fight.

The stuff about the dud engine is very interesting as well, and seems to lend even more credibility to the idea that the DH2 was significantly more maneuverable than the D.II - if Hawker could fight MvR for such a long time with a dud engine, then the DH2 must have been pretty capable of avoiding the D.II..
 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2024 by Flashy

[No.23_Starling]

On 11/28/2024 at 9:13 AM, Holtzauge said:

Below is a figure showing the relative turn performance of the Airco DH 2 & Albatros D.II at an altitude of 500 and 3500 m based on C++ simulations.

 

For those that don’t have the background about the C++ simulations and how the models used have been verified, I suggest reading this thread from the beginning.

 

I thought it could be interesting to show not only the top turn rate numbers, but also how they compare with speed.

 

First of all (and not surprisingly) we can conclude that the stringbag does not like going fast, and as long as the Albatros pilot keeps his speed up, he will not only climb better, but turn better as well.

 

And given that the Albatros is so much faster than the Airco, the only thing the DH 2 has up its sleeve is its advantage in slow speed turns.

 

And this could theoretically make for an interesting matchup:  The classic “angles” versus “energy” dogfight.

 

However, it seems that in-game, the Albatros D.II beats the DH 2 in turns as well. And not by a small margin either: AFAIK the in-game Albatros turn time at 1 km altitude is around 14 s while it takes the DH 2 all of 17 s.

 

However, my C++ simulations indicate exactly the opposite: The DH 2 should have a turn time of around 14 s while the Albatros D.II should need in the order of 17 s, i.e. pretty much mirrored results.

 

So in summary, this means that the in-game DH 2 is pretty much useless since the in-game Albatros D.II is superior in speed, climb and turns.

 

I would argue that this is one of the most important things to fix given that unless this is done, about the only thing the in-game DH 2 is useful for, is to sit in the hangar, or for some sightseeing in Paris as long as there are no Jerries around.

 

 

@LukeFF the Albatros DII modelling here is worth adding to the dataset Anders shared from the his book which only has the DVa at present. 
 

Given how top of mind the Airco DH2 will be since the recent release of volume 4 it would be worth considering its turn performance relative to its heavier opponents. Anders’ data and eyewitness contemporary accounts suggest the pecking order is awry. Amending the DII alone may not be enough.