Request: Youtube Videos of Combat Maneuvers

The roll rates of these Birds can not be compared to an ultalight because of the centrifical force generated by the rotatating mass of the entire engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtprTL66-FY
This pilot discusses the flight characteristics of the Camel

After the War. . the 'rotory' engine, was never seen again :kilroy:
 
wehyam said:
For what its worth .. I think so.. and I think the stalls are a bit too benign as well :wiggle: I find it hard to believe there isnt a set of numbers for the different types.. someone test flew these planes didnt they? Somewhere there must be a little book with yellowed pages .. Camel (Bentley) roll rate Right roll rate Left.. Vna 136 ... Vr 70?.. Just what were the Xwind max components?? or didnt they care about these things
Click to expand...

It would be my contention, that the little yellow pages came into being in the 30's. The EIII was a wing warper. Hardly a test bed of aviation

The designer's were still, in the let's try this stage

That affair at Kittyhawk, was how long before, and they were 'Lucky' :d
 
womenfly2 said:
... OFF is pretty close.
Click to expand...

I'm with WF2 on this one. Not that I have a degree or great knowledge on the subject but it feels pretty good and I've flown ultralights.

The downside generally speaking {IMHO} is the AI is a little bit too uber and able to perform maneuvers that'd rip my wings off. So I wait quietly until they've finished showing off and then blow their brains out lol.

I think this is rectified in P3 ? We all know the AI (the intelligence bit) has been vastly improved in P3 but I'm unsure whether they'll still be able to perform uber maneuvers ? It all should be relative but I imagine it is not an easy thing to do.
 
gimpyguy said:
The roll rates of these Birds can not be compared to an ultalight because of the centrifical force generated by the rotatating mass of the entire engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtprTL66-FY
This pilot discusses the flight characteristics of the Camel

After the War. . the 'rotory' engine, was never seen again :kilroy:
Click to expand...

...... who mentioned they flew like ultralights before your post?

BTW, I have known Gene DeMarco for years at ORA, Cole too. I had a full set of Sopwith Triplane wings from ORA in my hanger along with my Pietenpol. Both great men and lovely people.

Just curious,
WF2
 
Womenfly2
I originally suggested'/hinted they might fly a bit like ultralights (microlights in my world) and quite frankly I think the OFF Nieuport and 'feels' a bit like one.. the Ikarus C42 maybe .. though that has a very benign 'stall'

And rotary engines.. gimpy.. did they 'evolve' into the radial engines ?
 
About the only thing the rotory, ever had in common with radial, was the cylinder araingment, actually the radial existed at the time. But it was such a precise mechanism, it couldn't be mass produced. So overall cost per unit, reared it's ugly head. :kilroy:
 
I've been looking for a schematic of the 'rotary mechanism' .. Wikki got one for the radial but I've not found one for the 'rotary' .. do you know a site?
 
Great input folks...it helps to bounce things off of others, especially when delving into the ever so subjective arena of "perception". I'm totally fine with whatever the OFF team produces, thrilled in fact, and will buy it and play it incessantly, (much to my wife's amusement, but thats okay cause she'll be watching "The Hills") hehe, we all have our distractions. So like I said, I'm cool with it. Wuz just wondering when I began this what the perceptions of others were. My experience is with smaller versions, scale RC versions mostly, and NO, not flying planks with ridiculously over powered engines. What strikes me is this, for instance, when I am being assailed by hostiles from behind...in a bipe not a Tripe, and I hit forward-down elevator, I don't seem to drop out of the bullet stream as fast as I should....(again-perception! I could be wrong), also, when I hit right or left aileron the roll rate seems a bit retarded. What I've noticed when flying actual model type craft is that the roll rate seems a good bit faster, and the dive rate always much faster. Now, before you crucify me as to the difference in scale between models and full size, let me continue to say when I switched from flying a 40 inch span bird on glow, to an 88-inch gasser, the difference was, well staggering.....ITS SOOOOO SLOOOOOOW!! Well really, no it isn't, its just relative....to its scale of course. So this may well be the perception, or mis-perception we sometimes experience in-game. Couple this with the fact that the OFF craft are representing a few magnitudes in order larger planes, the fact that even though I dive or turn the pilot behind me firing is likely leading me, and that if you are near no fixed frame of reference, it seems like you are floating in space so even though you may be moving very fast, you just can't tell, I think all of these factors are potentially at play. So the OFF designers may be spot on. I do agree with Catfish that the Albatri could use some ability upgrading to make them more true to life....perhaps in Phase 3 eh? But I think overall OFF is very close.My only experience in a real biplane is most limited, that being to the one you can fly in at Old Rhinebeck, and of course we were not engaging in combat maneuvers......(no matter how much I tried to bribe the pilot....darn :d). And though you get all of that "rush of motion feel" while really flying there, which is the only thing you don't get in OFF, I'd bet if you were floating along outside that bird with none of that "feeling" to base perception on, or even in the cockpit, it would be much harder to tell exactly how fast you were going, or how quick the maneuvers you did were.

ZZ.
 
:wiggle: ZZ..
it may not be worth anything but I've been a passenger in a cessna aerobat while my instructor gave me a retirement birthday treat.. absolutely wonderful.. flicks half cubans .. loops etc..

this flies at about the same speed as the OFF planes... I remember the rate of roll being faster than OFFing.. But yesterday (on topic) I spent a happy hour or so trying emergency 90's..in my Camel.and a borrowed Nieuport.. .
This is an exercise .. he says go left or go right .. and you have to change direction 90 degrees as fast as possible back to level flight... emergency avoidance stuff.. Anyway I think the Nieuport (and maybe my camel) and how I remember the cessna, 'felt' sufficiently similar for me... :wiggle:
The problem of course is the little 'accelerometers' in the middle ear dont get excited in OFF , nor does the negative G detector in the stomach during the stall.. .... pity really..

think I'll go an check out the rate one turn ... GEEKY:redf:
 
That IS helpfull Weyham! Lucky you to have such a cool instructor too to allow you to stunt about. Yeah try the Albatros DIII sometime, seems a touch slow....your perspective is exactly what I'm getting at as being a pertinent point of reference.

ZZ.
 
Hello womenfly,

concerning flight manoeuvers you wrote:

" ... OFF is pretty close. A roll in any of these aircraft always starts with a dive for maneuvering airspeed before stick input. These plane loose energy very quickly, then they stall. Best example that most people will understand is a J3 Cub. ..... but there is way more to consider too.
P.S. Fly inverted? ... only if it was a positive-G maneuver. ..."

I am generally convinced that OFF is close, however i doubt you can compare the flight characteristics of a Piper Cub with an Albatros in terms of weight, horsepower, top speed and service ceiling (?)

For what i read (i translated this some time ago, and posted it here or over at the aerodrome) reading Jentsch' book about his experinces with an Albatros DII, and later DIII.

He was used to fly Pfalz and Fokker monoplanes, when he first climbed into a DII. He describes the DII as an agile and nimble plane, a very good climber and turner - ok, 1916/17.
But he (and Udet in another book) speaks of flying barrel rolls, inverted (!) and loopings at very low altitude in a DII, he is almost courtmartialed because of that - but after very few time the whole Jasta executed those manoeuvers.
He also spoke of a squadron mate turning his Albatros upside down "in a second" - just try this in OFF. He also speaks of a glowing exhaust, and visible blue exhaust flames as long as the DII's engine was running.

William Bishop said:
"He [the pilot] has to be able to fly loopings, to turn and fly his machine upside down, and master numerous other artistic stunts - and not because this is necessary for the fight - but because once he has mastered those manoeuvers repeatedly, he will have faith in his skills, and he will not worry about the reaction of his plane in a fight. So he can fully concentrate on the enemy's attack, and the flying arises by itself. ..."

So from those quotes and texts i have a slight feeling of a general underestimating of the real potential of those planes. A bit like "they were not able to because this was a 100 years ago", and today we certainly know better.

Be it as it may, i am really waiting for Phase 3, and i will keep asking questions, even if i'm wrong :d

Greetings,
Catfish
 
hey ho ZZ..
:wiggle: I think you're right.. The Albatros are slower in the 'roll' than the later ones .. Today I been mostly flying the German planes. I think the Fokker DVII's are the pick of the bunch.. .. they do feel to me like a plane should!!.. BUT..

But what do I know.... but I know what I like..:kilroy:

I was thinking about this 'feel' thing .. and I dug out my X-plane sim this afternoon and it reminded me of what annoyed me about it.. :banghead: and much is directed towards systems (rather like the real world aviation) than low slow and be accurate or die.. whereas, in contrast the demands of OFF are to make the planes controllable and flyable so it possible to aim and shoot each other down..

I think the illusion that the 'sim/game' has to get over is that of inertia.. the plane has to feel as though there's some mass that you can steer and that you have to learn to control the 'physics' input that is needed to move it accurately about.. The camel may be a pig with wings... but it seems to behave like a pig with wings should!:wiggle:

So the joystick (pedals) travel and 'gearing' to the control surfaces is of course indirect and can't be realistic but it can be 'sensible' ie sort of repeatable so the relationship between the input you make and what the sim tells you your plane has done can be learned .. and maybe you can fine tune the profile of your stick but IMO this is not the key.. the relationship between the input and the response has to be reliable and sensible so the 'physics' feels right..
:173go1:
What I think OFF has got nailed (I also think the planes I flew in IL2 had it too) ,and it's not simply due to the absence of 'turbulence', is that it somehow magically conveys this 'feel' that the thing is half a ton or more moving 'smoothly' along the arc of a 3D trajectory (coordinated or not) ..

'Stunting' the Fokker DVIIs is pure pleasure..I think the illusion is that excellent..I can believe this thing is sliding and carving beautiful smooth arcs through the sky..and I'm controlling it.. Thanks guys .. that feeling alone is worth twice the donation.. :icon_lol:

Stunting the Camel is less pure pleasure but the illusion is there.
Its just that now in order to get the smooth trajectory to get me where I want to be I have to learn some unusual rudder skills.. BUT when I do it right it feels like I think it should .. and when I do it wrong.. it still feels like I think it should!!

Another part of the illusion of controllability is the scale of the objects.. the visual perspective cues have to be 'realistic' or stable anyway.. You can't have 300ft tall trees and silly height buildings around the airstrip and expect judgement of the approach angle and height above apron to be reliable..
BUT maybe this is enough already..
:ernae:
 
hey ho Catfish and others..
I'm not sure how relevant this is.. but the curtis P-40 courld roll at 95deg/sec at an airspeed of 270mph and at 400 mph it dropped to 65 deg sec.

High stick forces were a problem!!
this is a book!!
http://books.google.com/books?id=D-...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1

it doesnt say much about WWI stuff except to say that stick forces at combat speeds were high!! The camel had a tail heavy cg position and killed students!!! :wiggle:
 
The war birds fraternityhave been there.. this contains a table of WWII data and warbird kit comparisons..

http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/nacaroll.htm


essentially : warbird planes roll slower than real ones.. and the slower speeds the difference is greatest.. FW190 4.8s vs 7.5s WB-FW190 I assume this is for a 360..
the spitfire took 4sec to roll 360 at 100mph and 3.1s to do it at 300mph..

So.. :kilroy:
 
Very Good . . in the 30's, and 40's

But Prior to then the engineers at Shukert ( spelling ?) had an aircraft which was unflyable, due to excessive engine torque.

The solution was an oversize rudder, and the wings extended 4 inches on the portside. I wonder if that had any effect on the roll rate :d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x70t5XuUxOg
 
wehyam said:
Regarding the training...

from what I've read .. one of the major 'training' needs for people was not so much stunt flying practice, but it was to get used to seeing/spotting and classifying the aircraft around them .. it is surprisingly difficult .. :173go1:

fortunately OFF lets me have big yellow brackets and labels.. and .. if I havent noticed anything a red list of damage reports acts as a hint that I've missed something!

besides which.. if you use a camel all you really have to learn is how to get it in and out of a spin (the first bit's easy, coming out of the spin in the right direction is the hard bit.. ) :wiggle:
Click to expand...

About the CAMEL's difficult handling, I've recently read somewhere in the web (shame on me I don't remember, where):
With the Camel, you had to give RUDDER LEFT IN TURNING EITHER SIDE. When turning right, rudder left kept the nose up. When turning left, rudder left prevented the nose from climbing. (sorry, my English is far from perfect - hope, it's understood). Seems to have something to do with a strong engine spin, or the air spiral round the fuselage caused by the propeller; does anyone know? (The Bf 109 G's needed hard rudder right at starting/landing, I read - maybe for a similar reason?)
 
Olham54 said:
About the CAMEL's difficult handling, I've recently read somewhere in the web (shame on me I don't remember, where):
With the Camel, you had to give RUDDER LEFT IN TURNING EITHER SIDE. When turning right, rudder left kept the nose up. When turning left, rudder left prevented the nose from climbing. (sorry, my English is far from perfect - hope, it's understood). Seems to have something to do with a strong engine spin, or the air spiral round the fuselage caused by the propeller; does anyone know? (The Bf 109 G's needed hard rudder right at starting/landing, I read - maybe for a similar reason?)
Click to expand...

As far as the Camel's strange habits, much of it could be traced directly to the centrifical force generated by that massive ( at that time ) rotary engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtprTL66-FY ( first 2 minutes)

They utilized a bit of high rudder in the turn, as they used the rudder as a huge elevator, when first introduced, it earned the name: Widowmaker. Because many a unsuspecting new pilot, attempted a tight right turn, and dove to his death.

That is the primary reason, I shy away from the camel

That's my reason, I like the Tripe, however she's not without Quirks. You must remember to chop your throttle prior to diving, because at 155mph your elevators STOP working. I've taken that one-way trip, too often :d
 
Olham...
Apparently the camel also liked to stall at takeoff..:wiggle:
however.. I like it.. Since I started Offing I've mainly flown the camel and must have some 30-40 maybe more hours in it in QC Dogfigts (burnt a dozen or more pilots!). Now I've become used to it's Quirks(!!) I think it has real virtues. Even against the Fokker DVIIs which are by far the 'nicer' planes .
God knows what it would be like to fly a real one.. :173go1:
But once you've got the zoomer boomers down low, because it can really turn inside so rapidly, it's 'easy' to cut across their energy 'bowl' and hook onto them .. and just give them a bad time.. (maybe the AI are just dumb)..
and almost nothing (except maybe the RB in a DRI ).. can stick on their tail going left.. So like the Boelcke says.. keep on the rim and you'll soon be on their six..

Never flown the Tripe (? wotsat then) .. maybe will try it.. right now.. :ernae:
 
Sopwith Triplane - single gun - excellent low speed manuverability
climb rate is great- visabity excellent- a DOG above 10,000- fires rockets as if by MAGIC from it's belly. The loadout states 8 rockets, you get 4 :costumes:
 
Not my sort of plane that Gimpy.... It kept falling apart.. and I notice you only get half as many rounds. :wiggle:
I'm staying with the Camel till the snipe arrives.. mind you it has got good visibility.. especially after you shed a wing or two.. and you're right the elevators dont work over 150..:173go1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top