Not necessarily. It may have been very true with used planes. (also RoF Albatros D.Va is currently underperforming. It is slowest german plane)

There is a well known case of an F15 that landed after a mid air, with only the immediate 'root' area of one wing attached.

Good point Lieste yes I remember that, seems to make no sense however much the fuselage and other surfaces generate lift. Those surfaces aren't designed to generate lift but to let the air flow by smoothly, whereas lifting-surfaces must re-direct air to generate lift. You'd think that both wings are a bare minimum for flight

Ming

He is commenting that at altitude the Albatros is faster. If you fought at altitude the speed difference mattered there, not at treetop. But please, don't worry about that, go on with your campaign for a slow Dr.I.

As Staffelfuhrer of Jasta 7, being the war's leading 'Dr.I Ace' with 30 victories of 48 fying the type, and believed to have flown the Fokker triplane longer than any other frontline pilot, the opinions of Leuntnant Josef Carl Jacobs certainly cannot be discounted.

Known as "Kobes" to his pilots, Jacobs kept a meticulous diary of his unit's operations, even to the point of attaching pieces of barograph paper to each day's flight log. In his writings he recorded flight impressions of the types of aircraft he flew, and how they performed in combat and within squadron operations. As a flight instructor, combat pilot, and Jasta leader, he had personal experience with at least 11 German 2-seater types, and 11 German scout types, the fighters covering a range from the Fokker Eindecker to the Fokker D.VII, and he wrote about a number of limitations concerning the performance of the Fokker Dr.I.

From Kobes, Thoughts and Descriptions, by Stephen T Lawson, Cross & Cockade International, 1998:

"His point of view concerned the triplane's slow maximum speed in relation to other aircraft. As a Jasta Commander he would set the pace for his unit in formation flights but while he flew at top speed constantly in the triplane his unit in Pfalz D.IIIa, Alb D.V or Fokker D.VII types would have to fly at considerably reduced rates of speed."

Being a Staffelfuhrer, Jacobs had two personal Fokker Dr.I aircraft at his disposal, both painted black with Devil head insignias on their sides, not to mention that his position allowed him to fly any aircraft in his squadron. His favorite Fokker triplane survived combat duty from February to October 1918, until it was destroyed in combat as Jacob's fought off Camels attacking his aerodrome. In addition to the original Oberursel UR.II rotary fitted to this persoanl mount of his, Dr.I 450/17, Jacobs also fitted captured Le Rhone and Clerget engines to his and his squadron's triplanes. In fact, Jacobs offered crates of champagne to local infantry units that could supply captured enemy rotary engines and the captured aircraft's oil supply to Jasta 7.

No doubt Jacobs conducted this campaign to ensure that he and his pilots might have the best chance of optimal performance when flying the comparatively slow Fokker Dr.I.

RocketDog has almost nailed it in his first post (with honorable mention to Dart on page 1 as well )

In the famous words of the great College football coach, Lou Holz (who really does look like granny on the Beverly Hillbillys...but I digress); "Things are never as bad as they seem, nor are they as good as they seem". It'll be good to keep this quote in mind when flying the Dreidecker.

Peter, it's not so much a campaign for a slow DR1 so much as an effort to get a correctly modelled DR1.

The temptation for developers is to beef up the DR1 and the Camel, whether by selectively using only the most optimistic data or simply beefing it up in order to meet customer expectations. While the SimHQ crowd is pretty good at keeping subjective and objective reasoning balanced, there's an awful lot of folks that will instantly proclaim the modelling wrong if they can't reproduce MvR's or Jacob's kill count with ease in the type.

Bottom line on the DR1 is pretty clear: get into a knife fight with it at one's own risk, as it's a master at it.

I think it's grand that we will (hopefully) get the in-flight recorder at the same time as the DR1 and Camel (which is similarly susceptable to an "enhanced" flight model), as of all the planes these two will probably be the most debated as far as the FM goes.

Well noted Dart, and if there's a released sequence of aircraft planned, whether for a retail flight sim, or even mod, it's advisiable to avoid issuing the Fokker Dr.I and Camel till enough expertise in crafting the FMs is assured.

As a bit of flight sim history, Richtofen's Skies did exactly the opposite, and tried to offer the Camel and Fokker Dr.I initially......the reception was less than encouraging IMO, and probably hurt the project's future popularlity.

Now Aces High is to offer WWI planes to fly, and has chosen of the four initial aircraft the Fokker Dr.I and Camel. Perhaps a popular marketing move, but risky from the outset for any new retail offering claiming authenticity of the FM experience.

It's supposed to come with the 1.009 update, so one more month to wait.


The Albatros DVa in ROF has a maximum speed of 160 kphat 50 meters altitude. So i doubt the DR.1 will be any slower, not because it shouldn't be slower, but because the DVa, like Mig77 said, is seriously underperforming right now.

I do agree. The listed maximum airspeed of the ROF Albatros D.Va is unattainable in-flight on my install also (Free fly at 50 meters height, full ammo and tanks, warm engine).

Interesting discussion about Dr.I max speed: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34238-fokker-dr-i-maximum-speed.html

Short summary to those who dont want to read it all.

Official speed figure 102,5mph@4km is very possible.
Max sealevel speed probably between 105-115mph (115mph is most optimistic, but possible).
Oberursel engine did derate fast (and lost power -> perfomance dropped).

I tend to believe the memorial flight pilots quote that he struggles to get 100mph from his DR1. Its from the here and now, a well maintained aircraft with a modern pilot. I also like the quotes in that Aerodrome thread of Dr1's being shown a clean pair of heels be Dh9's and MvR firing at Camels from long range to make them jink and slow down, none of this suggestes a fast aeroplane.

As others have said I think there's a strong incentive for Neoqb to over model both these aircraft. Both were getting long in the tooth by mid 1918 and will probably struggle in an online dogfight server, we'll see how they turn out.

Mogster, I prefer historical data, but I can see your point. Imho problem with replica aircraft perfomance tests are that most are not excact replicas and they are not usually flied "to their limits" (for very understandable reasons) like they were in those tests.

I think we need to review this footage of the most accurate Dr.1 flying today ....

Isn't that absolutely beautiful?

RD.

I agree about the H&S changes often forced on replica builders but the memorial flight aircraft do seem to be quite close to original. I'm not sure I'd consider max level speed flying the aircraft to its limits, diving hard yes, not flying level.

...... the video shows the most and maybe the only footage of a Dr.1 with a rotary, or for that matter, any WW-1 plane of today flying anything but straight and level. Even the guy's at Memorial Flight do not put their planes through this type of maneuvers.

Just awesome!

That inverted spin makes me cringe every time I see that vid. I keep expecting it to turn into one of those airshow crash vids that crop up on you tube.

I know this isn't evidence but it looks like its hanging in the air through quite a lot of the vid, so much lift, lightweight, so little inertia in the turns.

One way or another it's sure to be porked.

That's the spirit!

Actually, no matter how they model the DR1 it will be wrong, based on all the conflicting data.

Will they model the climbing prop or the straight and level prop? Or maybe both and introduce the first variable pitch propeller .