Forum Message
| City: | Kansas City  | | Personal Data: | Male, | | HomePage or other cool site: | http://www.wwi-models.org/ | | Membership | 20years 145days ago. | | Last Login | 3years 29days ago. | | Last Move | 15years 50days ago. | Impailer is currently  | |
| | Message text >The Camel flew with at least 3 different engines, the Le Rhone, >Clerget, and BR1. The game posits an altitude of 15000 feet, at >the altitude the statistics for speed are: Le Rhone-103mph, >Clerget-105mph, BR1-103mph. The Camel commonly flew >witht he Le Rhone. Clerget and Le Rhone were produced by the >French and were limited in supply. In fact, Camel production >outstripped engine supply and a 100hp Gnome Monosoupape >was tested and "compared favorably. All statistics were taken >from British tests of the aircraft.
Thank you, exactly my point. Most dogfights happened well under 10,000 ft. Therefore, we should use speed figures from at or below that altitude. Compiled from British Aeroplanes 1914-1918 by J.M. Bruce, Gray and Thetford's German Aircraft of the First World War, and French Aircraft of the First World War by Davilla and Soltan:
Aircraft Engine Max speed(mph) Altitude
Eindecker EIII 100hp Ober. 87.5 ?
M.S. N 89 ground level
DH2 93 ground level
SSW DI 110hp Siemens-Halske 97 ?
Nieport 17 110hp LeRhone 102.5 sea level
Fokker DrI 110hp Ober. 103 ?
Pfalz DIII 160hp Merc. DIII 103 ?
Pfalz DXII 160hp Merc. DIIIa 106.25 ?
Albatros DIII 160hp Merc. DIIIa 108 ?
Camel F1 100hp Gnome 110.5 10,000 ft.
Camel F1 110hp LeRhone 122 ground level
Camel F1 130hp Clerget 113 10,000 ft.
Camel F1 150hp Gnome 113 15,000 ft.
Camel 2F1 150hp B.R.1 124 6,500 ft.
Bristol F2b Falcon II 111 10,000 ft.
Bristol F2b Falcon III 119 6,500 ft.
SSW DIII 160hp ShIII 112.5 ?
Fokker DVII 160hp or 185hp? 114 3,250 ft.
Alb. DV 180hp mercedes 116 ?
SSW DIV 160hp ShIIIa 119 ?
Spad 7 150hp Hisso 120 sea level
Nieuport 28 160hp Gnome 123 6,500 ft.
Fokker D8 110 Ober. 127.5 ground level
Spad 7 180ho Hisso 131 sea level
Spad 13 220hp hisso 131 sea level
So the Camel was clearly much faster than the tripe or N17. Seems to me the logical breaks would be 3S3 <105mph, 4S3 between 105mph and 125mph, and over 125mph 5S4. The vast majority of Camels then clearly fall into the 4S3 categories.
>The Bristol was intended to be armed with two Lewis guns for >the observer, but was more commonly flown with only one to >save weight. A decision was made to use both guns since that >was what was intended by the design, but it is perfectly >acceptable to fly with only one since that was the prefered >method at squadron level. As for speed,British tests show it to >have the same speed performance at 15000 feet as the Camel.
The top speed for the Bristols does not specify single or twin guns, however, the text in Bruce's book did say the Bristol was typically armed with one or two lewis guns AND 12 20lb cooper bombs. So, taking off the bombs and/or one lewis gun would reflect a very dramatic increase in top speed.
>The N-17 has a much lower wing loading than the N-28, >which, when loaded outweighs the N-17 by nearly 30%. There >was a corresponding reduction in performance and was the >main reason the plane was given to the Americans. It was >basically a French reject.
From French Aircraft of the First World War by Dr. James J. Davilla and Arthur M. Soltan: "The major deficiency of the sesquiplanes had been low speed and poor climbing ability. An increase in wing area and a more powerful engine was required to correct these defects. Furthermore, shortcomings in the design of the lower wing had resulted in those of the Nieuport 23 ripping off in flight. A new wing had been tried on a Nieuport 27 that had two spars and a wider chord." "The aircraft was maneuverable and had a rapid climb rate. However, production aircraft were not popular and have been described as tending to shed fabric from the wings when they were steeply dived. Perhaps for these reasons the Nieuport 28 was not selected for production by the STAe." "Fortunately for Nieuport, there was still a pressing need for new fighters and the SPAD firm was having difficulties meeting its production goals for the SPAD 13. Also, the entry of the Americans into the conflict meant they would need new aircraft. As the French wished to retain the SPAD 13s for their own escadrilles, it was decided that the Nieuport firm would produce the Nieuport 28 for use by the American air service." "As mentioned above, the Nieuport 28 was unpopular and was also clearly inferior to the Fokker D.VII."
So was almost every other aircraft in use by the allied.
>The Pfalz D-III information came from an article in either Over >the Front or Cross and Cockade, I don't recall which, and my >Cross and Cockade has disappeared along with my Over the >Front. The article was an interview with a Pfalz pilot who flew >on the front near Switzerland. He stated that the aircraft would >snap into a left turn, but was sluggish turning to the right, and >that was incorporated into the game.
From German Aircraft of the First World War by Peter Brey and Owen Thetford. "It has often been reported that the Pfalz DIII was unpopular with pilots due to inferior performance and manoeuvrability, but this attitude is not easily understood in the light of an Allied assessment of a DIII (4184/17) which force-landed near Bonnieul on 26th February 1918 and was put into flying trim again. It was reported that the view from the cockpit was excellent in all directions, with the possible exception of approach glide, when to some extent the top wing interfered. With regard to flight characteristics, the comment was that the aircraft was stable laterally and unstable directionally and longitudinally, which doubtless meant that general manoeuvrability was good, although the rate of roll was perhaps not what it might hve been. It was also reported as answering will to all controls-- "much better than does the Albatros DV"".
The Pfalz DIII was powered by the same 160hp Mercedes DIII engine as the Albatros DIII. All control surfaces on the Pfalz DIII are symmetrical, like the Albatros DIII. So, why does the Pfalz spin to the left and the Albatros doesn't? Mechanically, it makes no sense whatsoever, and is not substantiated by the tests done on the captured airframe.
>Three quotes about the Pfalz D.XII:
>"During larger operations we flew the Fokker D.VII and Pfalz >D.XII mostly together. Both types were similar, but the Fokker >was more maneuverable. Therefore the Pfalz pilots had orders >from me, during attacks by the enemy, to fly below the >Fokkers." Ltn Rudolph Stark, C.O. Jasta 35.
>"In fact it climbed well and could fly along with the Fokker D.VII >in all respects and in a dive it was a bit faster. But in turns and >in combat it was slow and could not compare with the Fokkers. >The Pfalz was a sluggish workhorse which fought the bridle >and had to be controlled with a strong halter". Ltn Stark in > Jagdstaffel Unsere Heimat
>"When banking the aircraft into a turn, normal altitude can not >be maintained since the sluggishnes of the controls in the turn >causes the aircraft to lose 150 metres (490 feet). Ltn von >Hippel, technical officer, Jasta 71
From Gray and Thetford's German Aircraft of the First World War.
"Much of the propaganda which had extolled the Fokker product as a 'world beater' had led all German fighter pilots into wanting a DVII. When the practically unhearalded Pfalz DXII began to appear in the Jastas from August in 1918 pilots regarded it askance. Nevertheless it was an extremely good aeroplane, equal to the Fokker DVII in many respects, and in diving capacity, at least, it was superior. Pilots soon adapted themselves to it, and even began to like it." "Rudolph Stark, who commanded the Bavarian Jagdstaffel 35, which together with Jastas 23, 32 and 34 formed the Bavarian Jagdgeschwader IV commanded by Edouard von Schleich, has reported that when Pflaz DXIIs were received by his unit early in September 1918, to replace the war-weary Albatros DVas and Pfalz DIIIs, they were initially looked upon by the pilots with dismay. He nevertheless goes on to say that when the pilots had thoroughly familiarized themselves with the type-those that survived those hectic days long enought to do so, that is-were able to give a good account of themselves and to cope with the Camels, S.E.s and Dolphins of the British without undue disadvantage."
So, sounds like Rudy can't even get his story straight. One big complaint with the DXII was with ground crews as the DXII had an abundance of rigging and strut work that the DVII did not. One other point tending to demerit the Pfalz was politics. Prussians were in power (Idfleig, too) at this time, and all Prussians had viewed the Bavarians as German speaking slavs. There was quite a disdain for anyone or anything Bavarian. So, any aircraft coming out of the Pfalz factory was inherently poor.
Sounds to me like the Pfalz DXII was clearly superior to the Albatros DV, but not equal to the Fokker DVII. There has to be some way to reflect this in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
