Diagrams of Plane Performances 1916-1918

O

Olham54

The Bordeaux-Red Baron
Here's my Christmas present for the OFF-community! These diagrams are comparing the speed and climb rate performances of WW1 planes. I found the most data in www.wikipedia.org and some at www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft and made graphics of them - with no guarantee for their reliability. I mostly chose planes we find in Phase 2 and 3, and if there will be more types in P3, I may do an update later.
I hope you all can save the Jpeg's to your PC's, and that they are good enough to read. I printed mine, and when I come across enemy planes, I press "pause", and look into my diagrams to see, what may plane can do better than theirs (well, I'm still learning! The real aces knew their data, off course), sometimes, that may just be the escape speed or climb.
Have a very comfy Christmas, you all; and a good start into 2009 ! :wavey:
Olham
 
Excellent work. Thanks for sharing. I'm sure these will come in very useful as I learn more about the characteristics of the aircraft I encounter. :ernae:

Doublestop
 
That is real awesome! But you know that you just opened up a big can of worms here.

Now everyone will be comparing each plane in OFF P2 & P3 to the charts. I can just see the hundreds of new threads that will be posted .....

" Hey WM the D.vII only climbs at so-and-so but the charts said it should do ... and Pol the max speed I get from the SPAD is only .... Will there be a patch out soon to fix all this??????

O-ya, Baby!

LOL!
WF2
 
Good grief, WF2, now you got me worried there!
Every now and then, I seem to show a real talent for making others coming after me with forks and torches!
On the other hand, I think that Pol and all the others have long known these data, and built their planes that way, more or less. And as I said in the diagrams: there's no guaranty, that these data are the ultimate truth. So, I found the only detailed ones for German planes, showing more accurate performance curves. I think, no-one can say, how the actual curve for, let's say, a SPAD XIII, would look at the different altitudes, as there just was no detailed information.
And it should be clear to everyone, that we fly a sim, were the real wheather, temperature and other factors, can't be perfectly simulated (not yet - I'm shure, Pol will do one day; maybe P5...).

I'm very confident, that Phase 3 will be the ultimate air combat sim so far; with an AI, that "feels" like real human pilots. (And I'm very keen on it, Pol, when will it arrive? Now? Tomorrow?? Tomorrow afternoon???)
Cheers; Olham
 
The problem arises that performance statistics, alas are not chiseled in stone. In Phase 1, following a description put on paper by an Austrailian Flying Officer in 1917. Take an SE5 to 15,000 feet, full power dive, she would hit 265mph, ( F5 ) Gauges. Start pulling out at 700 feet, you will come close to crashing, but you will stay alive. Plus it'll clear your sinuses.

Phase 2, no kinda way, at 215mph, the elevators stop working, next stop Dirt Nap
Granted it is a rather extreme movement, but I used to enjoy it. :isadizzy:
 
... just pulling the old throttle here Olham. ..... :icon_lol:

LOL,
WF2
 
Great thanks Olham54. More data is always welcome. There are so many variants in figures and charts from various sources often contradictory we'll be here till next Christmas debating that one - one example some allied tests of German a/c were using different fuel types/mixtures so caused a worse performance to be logged. Hope those charts take some of those into account ;)

For WW1 data you often have to look into several sources, compare, read up then make your mind up.

Se5 is more Gimpyfriendly in P3.
 
Olham,

Unfortunatly there is not a lot of reliable data on performance of WWI aircraft. Most "data" come from anedotial <sp> evidence. For example no aircraft has a strictly liner rate of climb, it always falls off as altitude increases. Unfortunately not to much analytical testing was done on aircraft of the first world war, at least not like it was done with the planes of WWII. Which makes the "The (insert favorite plane) doesn't (insert particular performance area) like it should, even harder to work out. Still good work on the charts I'm sure they will help a lot.

Scott
 
I don't care what the chart says, that DrI climbs like a friggin' monkey, and will turn on a dime and give nine cents change!

CJ
 
Thanks, all, for compliments and criticism; but it's right, off course: those strict-line performances are done after data saying for example: 5 m/s. Now, that plane climbed perhaps 5 Meter per second, on it's way from 0 to 1.000 Meters, but what came then, from 1.000 to 3.000 Meters ? I was aware of that. But GregG and others asked somewhere for comparing perfomance data, and so I collected, what I could find. Perhaps it can still give a rough overview about, what are rather strength's, and what are weak spots on my plane.
The rest must be found out - that's what makes it a thrill !
And CAMELJOCKEY, you are damn right: I tried the Dr. 1 for the first time today and downed 2 Camels. If only I had known her better, I wouldn't have wasted so much ammo, and could have made it three. It's as MvR said: "climbs like a monkey and turns like the devil".
Cheers; Olham
 
With all this said ..... At the Fighter Competition Trials, Antony Fokker would present his performance data to the power-to-be of all the machines he had present.

Fokker's own test pilots where very hard pressed to make the planes they flew live up to them.

Good thread!
WF2
 
Thanks a bunch Olham. Those charts are awesome. Yes, there may be some points that would give your diagrams more precise and acurate data, but I still appreciate that they give a general overview of aircraft strengts/weaknesses. As for the Merry Christmas....right back at ya bud. Have a good one.
Prost:ernae:

-Rooster
 
At last .... proof the Se5a is king ! Thanks Olham ol' boy :d
 
Hey, CATCH22
The S.E. 5a is definitely the most reliable overall performer on Allied side; kind of a Battle Stallion. S.E.5a or Camel - that's a bit like Hurricane or Spitfire. And I heard, that the Hurricane pilots would not change her against a Spit, when offered. (And didn't the Hurricane do most of the dirty jobs?)

Whe I start an Allied campaign, I'll pick her first; promised!

Cheers; Olham
 
Hello Olham,
the Spitfire came a bit late to save England, this "job" had been done foremost by the Hurricane (and certainly its pilots!) - but the Spitfire was a very good plane without doubt.

Anyway the graphs are at least some possibility to see a tendency - there are several books that mention "anecdotes" or events where you can read how planes performed, maybe more in a personal or subjective way, but i doubt reality had something to do with those straight graphs shown above, in varying altitudes, temperatures, and engine conditions.
Jentsch writes about reaching 1000 meters in 3 minutes, in his early Parasol-like Pfalz Eindecker. But how high was his starting point in the Vardar valley, and how much time would it need to climb the next 1000 meters ?

Greetings,
Catfish
 
Great stuff Olham - thanks! Really makes me want to delve into some later war technology! I guess I'll have to fire up an Se5a next.

Is there any data available for best glide speed and min. approach speeds for the OFF aircraft? From one a/c to the next is a real trick when you lose an engine or try your first landing.

Thanks, T
 
As WF2 put so succinctly, there is room for debate

Certainly there is other information that the DR1 was unsurpassed for Climb rate by any aircraft, save the Dolphin, a very late entry. In addition, the Dr1 ( read German's ) had poor oil quality, which may have hampered engine performance, and also to enhance performance they modified the propeller to provide a steeper angle of climb. So.......it's a mystery.....

Cheers,

German_ eh for British_eh
 
Hi, franksvalli
Great find - I have used the data for turning performance, to add one diagram to the above. These data seem to have been "worked out" on the basis of math and physics. Maybe, no one will ever know, how correct they can show performances of the real planes. But we can read there, that MvR just THOUGHT of his Dr. I, it was such a great climber, when in fact it wasn't THAT good (compared to Pup and Camel).
This shows, how important the pilot was in all this competition: how far would he ever go to the very edge with his plane ?
I will try to translate the Climb rate diagrams into the above; as they are rather difficult to read - the left axis numbers don't show the climbed altitude, but the climb of feet per minute; which is a different thing.
Thank you; Olham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top