Hi Gents,

I finally had a Saturday to blow on Rise of Flight and had a play with the revised version of my beloved SE5a. It's Bloody Awful!

Take five ace SE5a's (no bombs) up against 5 ace Albatros's (any variant, even the 160hp Albatros D.II early) at 100 meters in the quick mission builder. If you try to turn with the albatros, without a pre-existing energy advantage, you'll soon find being out turned and out climbed and in a world of hurt. You can win but it's a hard fight

Now swap over, take five ace Albatros's up against 5 ace SE5a's (no bombs). You'll find you have to cut power to 50% to avoid overtaking the lumbering SE's in a turn as you sit effortlessly on their tails pumping rounds. It's an easy fight.

Against the Pfalz D.III, it's even worse.

Now I'm willing to bet that no one can show me a quote from pilots on either side saying how the Albatros and Pfalz dominated the SE5a. In reality, the SE5a wasn't even out classed by the Fokker D.VIIf;

Marshal of the Royal Air Force William Sholto Douglas, said
" Just before the deaths if Jimmy McCudden and Mick Mannock, the Germans had started introducing on the Western Front a new fighter, the Fokker DVII, a single-seater biplane fitted with a new BMW engine - which was one of the best aero engines produced by either side up to that time. Fortunately for us, one of these new Fokkers was captured intact not long after it first appeared, and we were able to try it out against our own SE5. I was one of those who flew it, and we found that our own machine was a shade faster in level flight by about two or three miles per hour, but did not have such a good rate of climb. The Fokker DVII was also slightly more manourvreable than the SE5, but we still had the advantage in being able to pick up speed more quickly in the dive."

If we do some quick calc's (all data from the outstanding Profile Publications), we see the SE5a has a better powerloading and lower wingloading than both Albatros and Pfalz

Albatros D.III Late
Powerloading .203 hp/kg (180hp/886kg)
Wingloading 43kg/m2 (886kg/20.5m2)

Albatros D.V
Powerloading .211 hp/kg (180hp/852kg)
Wingloading 40kg/m2 (852kg/21.2m2)

Pfalz D.III
Powerloading .197hp/kg (180hp/915kg)
Wingloading 41kg/m2 (915kg/22.17m2)

SE5a (Viper)
Powerloading .228hp/kg (200hp/879kg)
Wingloading 38kg/m2 (879kg/22.84m2)

The only thing the SE5a can do now in ROF is run.

(P.S. I haven't posted this on the ROF forums because from past experience, all you get is endless personal attacks that you dared to question Neoqb)

Spoon

Hi Spoon,

I believe the SE5a is currently at a disadvantage as the other aircraft are yet to be revised and they, both allied and German, are over modelled. The worst 2 are the Camel and the DR1 and I hope these are the 1st to be revisited by 777.

I am not expert, I am not even a good pilot, but the new SE5a resonates better with me in that I have always thought that the RoF planes were too WWII like in their ability.

The SE5a is modeled very, very closely to its real-world specs now. In a word, it's not awful - it's you.

Hmmmmm. I can slap around the Alby's with the new SE5A where I couldn't with the old version. The trick for me is to dive when the Alby gets on my six then reset.

Don't try to turn with them, BnZ.

I think the new Se5a is way better than the old one!

@ Teddy Bar

The new SE5a definately 'feels' a lot better and it no longer 'hunts' for a heading, which was always a gripe in a plane known for its stability. What upsets me is that it's rate of turn is even less than it was before. The change has made the unhistorical difference in turn between the SE5a and Albatros/Pfalz even worse.

@ LukeFF

Try reading my post before replying next time

@ Buddywolf and Django333

While you always play the energy advantage if you've got it, the SE5a was quite capable of close in fighting with the Albatros/Pfalz. In fact, if you read Great War combat reports, once the first dive was over, that's how battles were decided. The present ROF SE5a is defenceless once you reach energy parity and your forced to disengage. If you fly the SE5a vs Albatros, then an Albatros vs SE5a, historically you would feel the SE5a was the better machine. In ROF, I'd take the Albatros any day

Thanks

Spoon

If you're flying off line, use Criquet's AI Mod and fly Mods On. The SE (and other BnZ planes) will extend properly.

The stock BnZ AI try to turn and get killed very easily.

That's my impression exactly so far, after just a few hours playing with it in some quick missions against DVII's. Forget slightly inferior turn rate, I can't even come close. Reminds me of flying Wildcats against Zekes in IL2. Of course I'm still shaking off the rust and getting used to
RoF, but my impression was exactly as stated above.

What Tom said.

I would have tought that in this point, people actually would have already undestood also importance of wingprofile, stagger, gap/chord ratio and why sesquiplane desing had adventages in lift efficiency. Listing just wingloading and powerloading can be very misleading...

I dont even want to touch question about using only selected anecdotes as a proof...

AI vs AI is a pointless test because AI will ALWAYS turn and burn and does not know how to boom and zoom. With proper tactics (" seldom same alt, always above, never below"), the SEVa can completely dictate the way battle goes against any Albatroses, even when outnumbered by them. and yes, using anecdotes as proof doesnt cut it in RoF since 2009

See this thread and marvel at the work that was put into SEVa revision: http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=351&t=22802
The revised SEVa is realistic, historically accurate and meticulously researched and modeled.

Definitely, this helps a lot.

Yes, AI SE5s have always had their asses kicked by AI Albatrosses. This is nothing new.

Please research a little more before you rant? The SE5a still outclimbs all of the Albatrosses and Pfalz D.IIIa (as it should), and it dives like the wind (as it should).

Determining whether one aircraft is better than another by doing a 100m 5vs5 fight with the QMB is like determining a car's top speed by backing out of your driveway.

I feel these crates are being compared to WW2 birds and later. We read, say, the SE5a was great at BnZ however this term doesn't mean it's only good at BnZ. The SE5a and some other aircraft could do both, thats what was special about SE5a and why they became ace makers.

Our conceptions are mainly to do with WW2 planes and later as I said and a BnZ plane was great at BnZ but not a turn fighter. With WW1 planes this isn't the case. The SE5a should out fly many others be it turn or boom and zoom. It just so happens it wasn't just good at turning but diving and climbing aswell. We are boxing them into tiny compartments I feel and it doesn't work.

The SE5a in RoF at presnt does not feel like a ace maker nor one of the best planes inWW1. I'd take and Alb DVa any day or a Pflaz DIII.

In other sims the SE5a and the Brisfit are my favourite allied planes. In RoF I barely fly them. I just bought the Brisfit aswell, it didn't live up to my expectations, the speed drop off when you try and lift the nose off the horizon means it's a terrible climber for a start. Also the rear gunner may aswell not be there. I javen't seen them hit as plane yet even when I'm flying perfectly straight.

Should SE5a fly like in other sims? If i was used to Red Baron 3D, it means that here it should fly the same? Why? Is the FM of an older sim a reference? If i compare with some pilot account, am i better than that pilot, or how do i know which was the level of his enemies? The thread of SE5a FM correction, was it read by any of the complainers here, before they started to post? Sorry for the tone, but the title of the thread is in the same mood.

In multiplayer RoF, there are a lot of SE5a aces, and those good at flying SE5a before, online, were more than satisfied with the new corrections (diving etc.). It is an ace maker, for those who want to learn how to fly the machine, not to have a machine who fly like they already want. What i see here is people who do not want to fly by BnZ, they want to TnB and still have success, and invoking a lot of strange reasons for that.

( Reading the first post, more and more i see people who don't want to complain at the original forums, exactly because there know their complains are not quite valid and they will quickly get their answer. So instead they move here, and *sometimes* it looks like the SimHQ RoF forum becomes the 'second wave forum', a place to complain, like some weeks ago. )

Or look at the post directly above yours. The part about the F2B not climbing well is a howler.

If I BnZ I loose my wings lol

Dude, you are SERIOUSLY doing something wrong!!!!

I'm currently flying mid-career in my trusty Se5. My primary opponents are the DV's, DIII's and Pfalz DIII's and the obligatory DFW.

Except for the DFW's (which I ALWAYS attack from below), the other aircraft are easy pickings if I fly my SE5 properly. I NEVER engage the fighters unless I have the height advantage and if I start the fight that way, I do very well. I fly with full real except for a few viewing icons ( I don't see as well as I used to!!!) and I average 3 to 5 FIGHTERS a mission with real damage and real ammo. I generally come home without a scratch and almost always, no ammo. In fact, it's the running out of ammo that makes me head for home. I think the Boche hate my bird-for now...

If you fly the aircraft to its potential, the above named aircraft cannot touch you.

Your success is totally based on your knowledge of the SE-5's flight characteristics and using them to your advantage. I love my SE5-for now!

The point is that SE5a was good B&Z plane but was not bad IRL also as turn and burn one. At least it shouldn't be drastically worse then contemporary German planes like Albatros or Pfalz or even DVII. Actually in ROF only tactic is use huge alt adventage over opponent and make a few passes if you miss you could only run away. You cannot fight in equal terms beacuse you dont have any chance. I think something is not right here. Or some German planes are too good ( and too easy to fly and fight) or new Se5a is not as good as it should be. Now i feel it is like Olegs crapped Fw 190 A-4 against Spitfires MkVb in IL2.

Its no wonder people prefer the Pfalz over the SE5a in ROF at the moment, the thing is a beast, the ultimate yank and bank crate. Seriously overmodelled and easy to fly with it.

I think we need to wait till the Albatros and Pflaz flight models get looked at, I think there may be some unhappy Central flyers then. Even so anyone expecting the SE5a or Spads to win a stall flight with a well flown Albatros DIII or DV is heading for disappointment.

Mogster, I can't argue with your statements at all-the only time I'll get into a yank and bank with the Albs or P DIII is if I'm fairly confident my first diving pass lit 'em up pretty good! It won't stall turn with the German birds but I've had more than a few of my targets lose a wing trying to evade me after I scored hits on my first pass.

I still don't give away my altitude advantage though...

This may be cheating, but as soon as I clear the ground in my SE-5 I start climbing and I basically don't stop until I reach the front. If the enemy has an altitude advantage, the great dive speed of the SE-5 is my friend!!! I've had the airspeed indicator pegged and didn't have a problem with my machine because I didn't do any turns or big control inputs until it slowed down to around 140. You have to be watching your tach, of course....

Once I get some separation I start climbing at around 75 and pretty soon I'm turning round to dive on my "new" target!

Its not cheating CD, it using realistic tatics.

"Never Below" "Seldom on the same level" weren't they Mick Mannocks rules? McCudden seems to have followed the same mantra with his high altitude SE, diving on enemies then extending to climb again. If they couldn't attack with an altitude advantage then it was time to leave.

EDIT: On second tought... why even bother.

Well the cheating part comes from the fact that before I achieved a high-enough rank to lead my flights, I'd leave my flight and climb away instead of trundling along with them at lower altitudes. Have to admit I saved their bacon more than a few times when they got jumped!

I think Mannocks quote was "always above, seldom on the same level, never below".

The Se5a is still a lethal weapon .... as long as you keep your speed and energy up. She dives like a maniac now so that's the get out of gaol free card ... mostly. She still rolls well and the lower stall speed helps maintain control on tight turns.

But she loses energy so fast, not apparently because of aerodynamic performance, wingloading etc (that, I could handle), but because the powerful Viper engine loses revs rapidly thus reducing available power when given a little back-stick from level flight ? Can anyone explain why this is ? I don't mind the reduced climb performance if it's now accurate but couldn't it be modelled in another way ? Or is the way the revs drop dramatically realistic ? I'm no aeronautical engineer lol.

But she's still a looker, still deadly in the right hands and I still love her.

Because it uses now correct propeller and torgue curves (from documents provided by Piecost and others).

QFT.


You will need to provide links to strong evidence for what you are claiming here. If you haven't read the SE5a FM revision thread (link was provided elsewhere in this thread), you should do so. There are very strong advocates for the SE5a at the RoF official forum and they participated in that FM thread. No one tried to suggest that it could both boom and zoom and turn with the German TnB planes. But if you've got real evidence that it could, please provide it.


You could make the exact same statements about the SPAD XIII. And yet, there are many in the RoF community that will say it is the best plane in the game. The key is to not lose your energy advantage and to choose your fights on your terms. Same is true for the SE5a.

Irc the SE5a has a similar turn rate to the Albatros DVa for a 360 degree turn. The SE5a is always going faster though and drawing a larger circle to get that same turn time, the Albatros is going slower so its circle is smaller.

The new SE5s stall speed is actually lower slower than the old one, I find it easier to haul the nose round now for a snap shot. Overall the plane is much more stable as others have said, and you can re-create Arthur Conningham's full power dive.

Jesus, my hair was standing on end just reading it!

That Cpt. sure had some stones !!!!!

I've only just started researching WWI aviation.
However, so far I haven't seen any references to the SE5a being a sitting duck when energy parity is reached, or a helpless target
if caught from above close to the deck, or unable to come anywhere near matching the turn rate of contemporary German aircraft, etc.
That seems to be the case in the sim right now.

I'm enjoying playing with it still, makes for a great challenge. Use the QMB, the "survive" mission, start on the deck with a few bandits at alt approaching
your airfield at alt.

lol.. you probably won't find any references to the SE5a in WWII aviation..

Also that it could be relatively hard to even find anecdote where SE5a fought at deck... Altitude adventage made huge difference in WWI and if you were below, you were relatively "sitting duck" regardless of aircraft. SE5a/SPAD XIII tought could regain energy adventage if you had altitude first place.

Oops, typo fixed. LOL

Defintely always at a disdadvantage when caught from above in any AC, regardless of era, but that wasn't really the point.

I think, I don't know, but I suspect the SE5a was good, not because it could turn, but when it boomed and zoomed it could put a significant amount of lead into the target with one or two bursts when ambushing it's quarry.
It maybe didn't always get a kill but if it significantly damaged an enemy aircraft that aircraft would probably head for the deck or skedaddle for home, unlike RoF. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen DR 1's carrying on as if losing some or all of their top wings was utterly superficial.

At the moment it SEEMS to me that some of the Axis aircraft are rather robust and that some of the Allied aircraft, namely the SE5a and camel, are hobbled by having a reduced rate of fire, meaning they lack the punch of their namesakes. The reduced fire of the Lewis ( I know it's because it doesn't need to be reloaded) but also the lack of Hazelton muzzle boosters on the Vickers. I suspect the amount of lead that someone can put on target in the shortest possible time has a significant impact on the success or otherwise of a boom and zoom type engagement.

I also suspect that some people are under the allusion that the metal tubular airframes of some of the German aircraft mean they should be stronger and less prone to damage. I contend this is wrong and that the real benefit was not only weight reduction but just as importantly, certainly from the point of view of the riggers, stability of the material. It didn't need to be constantly adjusted due to warping because of changes in temp and humidity. A good bit of Ash is probably just as good, possibly better, at stopping a rifle calibre bullet and in wooden framed aircraft there tended to be more of it between the pilot and his pursuer. If that statement above is anyway true then the DR 1 should be more prone to serious damage from a well placed shot than a wooden framed aircraft.

I also think the boom and zoomers have a disadvantage because if you make a mess of your pass it is all too easy for your target, especially if he is skilled or practised and with the option of snap to gunsight views, to use his telescopic zoom to cherry pick his shots at your receding backside.

If you read about McCudden, Dallas or Mannock, they used the SE5a's superiour performance to ensure their flights entered the fight with all the advantages, but after the initial dive, it generally desolved into individual close in fights. Here, the SE5a can, and did, mix it successfully.
I'm willing to bet you can't find one quote where SE5a pilots state their inferiority to the Albatros in a turn or orders not to dogfight with them.

A analysis of WWI fighters by Scott Eberhardt of the University of Washington can be found here,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67077466/Aircraft-Performance-Discussion-Paper

He gives all his workings and on page 7, calculates that a Albatros D.Va had a sea level turn rate of ~ 68 degree's per second while an SE5a was closer to ~ 73 degree's per second. This is by no means proof but does go to show if you cruch the figures, the SE5a shouldn't be the wheezing horse it is in ROF dogfights.

Spoon

Mig77 said


On the evening of 27 Mar 18 Maj Crowe was flying B8256 attacking ground troops in region of Meaulte when as his CR relates:

"Having seen no EA and the clouds being low, patrol soon split up to fire ammunition at ground targets before returning. While I was firing at enemy transport on ground over Meaulte I suddenly heard a machine gun behind me and discovered an enemy Triplane on my tail. This was about 6.15 I immediately did a left hand climbing turn and had a most interesting scrap at 4,000ft which lasted about four minutes. Triplane could turn quicker than 200 hp SE, which manoeuvre he used considerably, but SE invariably managed to keep above him. It was impossible to keep sights on Triplane for more than a few seconds. I fired half a drum of Lewis and about 70 to 100 rounds of Vickers. Eventually Triplane dived east all out. I chased him as far as Contalmaison down to about 1,000ft and then left him."

Spoon

There isn't anything on the planes we can fly that will hardly slow down, let alone stop any of these full metal jacket machinegun bullets EXCEPT for the engine.

These bullets would pass through a metal or wood spar like a hot knife through butter. The only thing on the engine that would stop or slow down a bullet would be the parts made of cast iron. If it's aluminium, forget it.

I don't know what the deal is but I'm a freakin' deadeye at hitting my target with the SE-5. If my target breaks in front of me and I can pull enough lead to start just in front of the targets nose and rake him from stem to stern down the line of the fuselage, he's toast on the first pass. I wonder if it's because of the vertical stack of the guns putting all of the bullets down the centerline of the fuselage. It typically results in my target ending up with a dead engine, fire or dead pilot-and just with a couple second burst.

Try these in ROF and you will be dead in a few seconds. Before FM fix SE5a could made carefully spiral climbs over Albatros, Pfalz DIIIA and even DR1 but it was not such easy and you have to be very carefull - but it works afters some time and practise. Now after fix it is impossible beacuse you will be dead very quickly. New prop settings for SE5a casue that you have much worse power ( RPMs) during such manouvers.

If Se5a now is much more realistic i wonder about other planes which could make quite good spiral climbs ( Fokker DVIII, Dr1 or others) and more over they could hang on props near like Extra 300 without stall? Maby if other planes ( most Germans) could at least get stalls, get correct RPMs ( Dr1 and DVIII) and they would be flying more like real planes not RC moddels fight would be more realistic and historical. Now i think we could got correct Se5a, craped Nieuports against unrealistic flying Pfalz DIIIa, Albatros and some others planes. Until it wouldn't be fixed overall we would not have it in accurate way.

From Guttman's SE5a vs Albatros D.Va, page 5:

"...the SE5a was intrinsically the better aeroplane. Although less manoeuvrable than the Albatros, it was faster in level flight and excelled in a dive..."

And the booklet includes many pilot anecdotes to the same effect.

I take back what I said about the Brisfit....it is a killer....however you really only have one gun as I said as the gunner is more than useless. Why AI gunners always seem to pop my engine but my gunner couldn't hit a house I've no idea.

Practice flying and gunning at the same time. With the ability to aim almost anywhere in your upper hemisphere, and to do it while looping, in a hard turn, or even during an outside loop, any turret in RoF is more deadly than a fixed machine gun provided that there is a human at the controls.

Thanks, I was about to ask...
A, if he thought every single SE5a pilot during the war kept a journal and described in detail every single encounter.
B, if every single one of those journals was published
C, what amazing, intrinsic characteristic of the SE5a made it impossible for the pilot of said aircraft to find himself being jumped while landing, while taking off, after attacking a ground target, or
after simply making a mistake.

No it's a fact that when an SE5a was at deck level or low level and they where jumped they would say "Oh bugger" resign themsleves to their fate fly in a straight line and promptly get shot down.

"dogfight" dont only mean turnfight. Also there are lot of anecdotes Albatros being better turning plane. That said, anecdotes are silly to compare as it always depend on circumstances.



That analysis pops up in time to time. It is full of errors. IE it dont take account at all different gap/chord ratios and uses constant(one for triplanes and one for biplanes) for all planes, also data used (sources had ie wrong weight to planes, etc) is wrong in many cases. And really, do you think IE Dr.I could make sustained 360 turn in ~4-4,5s?

No, they would just dive to deck if low level (to get speed) after evading the first attack. Or try to scissors etc (SE5a has good roll rate) and wait help from wingman. Climbing turn would not be good as most german planes had similar climb perfomance (usually slower but difference was not that great), but they also did climb steeper angle -> they would get shot at you. Also you do know that lot of SE5a were shot down aswell and those were the ones who did try to turn fight with it or get did get surpised. SE5a was not that good turn fighter.

That makes more sense.

That why I said relatively hard. Majority SE5a combat reports are planes fighting at 10000ft and higher. -> General view from plane come from those reports, not planes fighting at deck. They could always dive, etc and because they had mixture control compared to German Mercedes D.IIIa engined planes they had even better perfomance adventage in engines at there that simple HP rating show (which itself can be misleading unless you know also torgue).

I find the following quote hilarious:


Possibly a certain misunderstanding of the concept of turning and stalling - I seriously doubt instantaneous performance much above 30 dps (the boundary between stall and maximum speeds isn't sufficient for most types to do much better) - sustained turns... around the same for the best, significantly lower for most.

Always above, seldom on the same level, never underneath.
-Mannock

If you want a plane to fight on the deck take the Pup, Camel or maybe even one day the DH5.

It was said tongue in cheek.

In the report in the post further back it was the SE5a still managed to get the Dr1 in it's sights for a few seconds and it was the Se5a that chased off the Dr1. At low level.

Anyway the only way anyone would truely know is if someone could talk to an old WW1 pilot or a WW1 pilot tried out RoF. As none are alive it's not going to happen, so lets face it it's all guess work and no flight sim doing this war can say they have a realsitic flight model, as no one alive actually really knows what that is with these crates.

The Dr1 could outmaneuver the Albatros, which could outmaneuver the SE5a, which could outmaneuver the Dr1...wait a second...

I like how it is assumed that this SE5a pilot's description is accurate, and this before the collection of many more anecdotes that describe a similar experience. It will be tough to find them.

Mig-77 doesn't like anecdotes, but there are dozens and dozens of anecdotes that describe the Dr1 and Camel as being slower than they are in the game. To my mind, such widespread agreement carries a lot more weight than a single, isolated anecdote.

I don't know about any of these planes but are their not enough replicas in existence to do some testing and finding real numbers?

You'd have to fly the planes at the edge of the envelope, and nobody is going to risk either their lives or the rare aircraft in question - in general anyway.
Seems to me I saw a show on Discovery Wings comparing the Camel to the DR1 using real airplanes, with the Camel coming out on top.
Still, they were hardly flying the aircraft to the edge.

C'mon, it's common knowledge that the SE5 could not turn with a Fokker Triplane. Why are we even arguing about that. Werner Voss outflew six British aces in SE5's , in his silver blue tripe. Put bullets in every one.
If they had been Camels, I'm going to guess that the fight would have ended sooner.

I don't see an ongoing argument about the SE5a VS the Tripe.
For my part I haven't studied WWI aviation like I have WWII all my life, so I'm genuinely curious rather than
making any declarations here.

Dunno, I just ran the performance numbers to get stall speeds from (ceiling (checked against climb-rate vs alt), speed vs alt curve, rho @ ceiling), and surprisingly (to me at least) using the 'ROF data' from the sheets, the Camel fares less well than you'd expect, and the SE5a rather better...

55mph Camel
53mph SE5a

Now, there is a whole area of problems with doing this (not least that errors in ceiling give changed stall speed both directly and because of altered rho values), but it is useful to highlight nonsense data which can creep into large data-sets (missing decimals etc).

ROFfan said

It'll take the anecdote of a WW1 ace who flew both the SE5a and German types (my first post) over the opinion of an author any day.

As for all the anecdotes in the book about the SE5a not being a turn fighter... we'll I couldn't find any.

There was lots of references to the Albatros being outclassed but none of them seems to mention your claim that the Albatros could still whip the SE5a in a horizontal fight, something I though would have been an important point to keep up pilots moral



And anecdotes that the British seem happy to mix it with the Albatros



and to be fair there was even one quote which said the German could fly their Albatros's well



The fact there seems to be a lack of claims by pilots of both sides that they could out-turn the other makes me believe there was little in it between the Albatros and the SE5a. However, I'm happy to change my views if ROFfan and Mig77 produce all the quotes they claim they have proving the Albatros superior.

Spoon

I wonder if, having revised the SE5a, something has been learnt by the guy doing the FM's that could be employed, given time and opportunity, to all of the aircraft. It's not so much something wrong with the SE5a but with the other aircraft.

The reason I say that is because I've always been a little puzzled by the Pup. It's a wonderful little aircraft and I love flying it, it's akin to a Camel (no sh*t Sherlock) only with less fire power but none of the Camels vices. There's really no great difference and yet the Camel was described as a quantum change in performance from it's predecessor. In RoF if I had a choice between a Pup and a Tripe I would pick a Pup. There's again no great difference except the Pup is easier to handle.

The Germans didn't fear the Pup half as much as the Tripe or the Camel, why ? You wouldn't know from flying RoF.

I was interested in a post, I think by WW1EAF_Ming ?, of pilot and aircraft notes from the national archive. An experienced pilot testing the Tripe explained why he considered it superior to the Pup. The Tripe, if I were to paraphrase, had sufficient power to hold a sustained hard turn, the Pup it appears had difficulty in this regard, presumably because the engine wasn't powerful enough to counter the increased weight from the added G forces, the Pup in a sustained turn would lose altitude (a very rough paraphrase using a very bad memory)

Given the new flight model for the 200hp SE5a, if the same modelling techniques and power curves were applied to the Pup, and others, it might behave a little more like the pilots description ? If the lessons learned from the reworked SE5a were applied also to other aircraft then we might find less nose up, biting in the bum, stall fighting that seems to pass for air combat at the moment. Energy retention would become more important, as it is now with the new SE5a flight model.

The German aircraft are usually underpowered, or at least have less horses available, but they can turn well, namely the Alb and Phlaz DIII, I just wonder if, given a lower power to weight than their Allied counterparts, they should also have problems with energy retention from sustained turns or heavy manoeuvring. Yes they can out turn an Se5a, but would not have the power to hold altitude or climb if a max rate turn was held for any significant length of time ?

So "your" anecdote is better than someone elses. Right. This demostrates exactly why comparing anecdotes are silly.



Did any find any where they said it actually was? Anyway anecdotes are not used determined is it turnfighter or not. Physics calculation are. SE5a has poor airfoil and gap/chord ratio for "turnfighter" making its lift efficiency relatively bad at high AoAs. Albatros/Pfalz/D.VII all had better airfoils (for turning, they are worse making high speed plane) and better gap/chord ratio.



All say only that SE5a was faster and dived better and becasue of that overall better plane.



You are just jumping conclussion. It might aswell be that there were not that much of turn fights as SE5a's mainly didnt entered one as they could dicdate how engament was fought. Also as I said, anecdotes are not used to make planes. They are way too subjective. IE plane with high E can always "outturn", in its broad sense, plane near stall.

Generally agree what you said (SE5a most accuraltely modelled plane, some other has problems), but had just to make comment on this. Did you know that Mercedes D.IIIa actually produced more torgue than Viper in british tests?

Viper:
200-210hp@1900rpm=560-580/lb-ft (~1900RPM produces max torgue in Viper, after that torgue get lower)

DIIIa:
180hp@1500=630lb-ft

Hi Mig77

There's a big difference from a quote by an ace who's flown the types both in trials and in combat, and an author who hasn't.

Back to the Albatros vs SE5a

1. The SE5a has the better power to weight ratio
2. The SE5a has the better (lower) wing loading
3. There's nothing special about the Albatros airfoil. The Albatros did not have the thick wing like a D.VII. The Albatros wing thickness was 7.8%, SE5a (RAF15 Airfoil) 6.5% and Fokker D.VII (GOE 387) 14.8%.


From http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm

4. The SE5a had a larger interplane gap creating less interference.
5. The Albatros has a smaller lower wing creating less interference than two similar sized wings with the same wing gap.

I fail to see Albatros dominance in that...

Now... where's all that evidence you keep promising to produce...

Spoon

True, but as DIIIa engine had better max torgue it could use larger/more efficient propeller -> more thrust per hp in theory. I havent checked if propeller was actgually "better", as I have no time now (Have to run to work)



Irrelevant, lower gap/chord ratio disturpts both wings.




Albatros wingprofile was high cambered. It has much better Clmax than SE5a airfoil.



Interplane gap? What you mean is lost in translation.




So Albatros had better Clmax, better efficiency because higher gap/chord ratio -> Total lift efficiensy was greater. Now I haven promised anything, infact I said I dont even want to touch "anecdote evidence" as they are way too subjective. From memory SE5a Clmax is around 1,08 and Albatros 1,3 - 1,4 and SE5a gap/chord ratio is less than 1 and Albatros around 1,3. Would need to check those, but I dont even bother (I dont really care do you belive or not ). You can look yourself Clmax of airfoils and gap chord ratios (You can find them from internet if you are that interested).

well the devs think FM fixes are not that important for sales (Ima talking about other plane not fixed Se5a)....so less time for them....sry
pitty as then well have better overall performances ( of all planes as they corerspodent with each other)...

hopefully I have something else to play while I wait the fixes...its a long wait so...

If this isn't an obvious example of an SE5a trying to BnZ, screwing up, and then failing to do the smart thing (run away), I don't know what is:



This whole thread is about wanting the SE5a to have no drawbacks, to be a superplane. The irony is that it is a superplane, but one that requires BFM knowledge and tactical sense to use properly.

P.S. the SE5a and D.Va turn rates are very close in RoF, but the D.Va has a smaller radius.

Actually, it's supposed to work that way, as it is the same in all aircraft.

The elevator controls airspeed.
The throttle controls altitude.

This is why best climb rates are always published by airspeed and not how far the nose is pointed towards the sky.

Hi ROFfan,

Yes, that's a quote about an Ace winning an energy fight against a rookie... There was no dogfighting, Bohme getting above the Englishman and them bnz-ing him. It certainly gives no indication which is the more manouverable aircraft.

This quote gives a far better idea in a fight between two aces. From ‘Survivor’s Story’ by Capt Gerald E Gibbs MC and two Bars Ld’H CdG

On the 13th March 1918, Gibbs, then one victory short of being an ace, fought an epic dogfight with Staffelfuhrer Ltn Otto Splitgerber, an eight veteran ace of Jasta 38.

Before I give Gibbs’s story, I must note that Gibbs had a special trick he used for getting in that fatal burst,

‘We were all taught that a good steady climbing turn would put you in a winning position against another fighter, but personally I did nothing of the sort. As soon as the inevitable circling around any enemy fighter began in order to get one’s fixed forward-firing guns to bear, I would tighten the turn as much as possible. A little top rudder would then cause a stall, and the SE5a would do the first half turn of a spin in the same direction as the circling opponent, and cut across it. Stick forward would straighten her up and stick right back would sit her momentarily on her tail – and I would get in a quick squirt upwards at the enemy fighter as it came past. Then, of course, a sort of tail slide or similar chaos would follow, and if I hadn’t hit him hard, something violent was indicated to stop him getting me from above.’

On the 13th of March, 1918,

‘We were doing an escort on the Doiran front for a change, and somehow I had got separated from my flight when I saw a formation of seven enemy fighters (Albatros D.IIIs) climbing up at a great pace, doubling their size every time you looked at them. They made me particularly angry because they were coming up cockily and fast, and in such good formation, and I took a dive into them. They were so surprised that they split up and disappeared in all directions, except for the leader, with whom I got tangled at once. He fought well, and we were soon circling around one another right-handed. Our turning circle was very small. We were so close that I had the rare opportunity of actually seeing my adversary face to face. I could see his head in black flying cap and goggles – I could even see him looking at me.
‘With my usual “unorthodox trick”, I managed to get inside him and underneath, and got my guns to bear. Following a long burst, he flicked right out of the turn to the left. I could see I had hit him hard – it’s strange how in your first few fights you aim so carefully and seem to hit nothing, and then suddenly you get the knack and can’t miss. He went away down in a steep fast sideslip to the left and then into a very fast spin, and one wing came off. Down he went, spinning faster and faster and slap into Lake Doiran between the lines with a tremendous splash which seemed to go up thousands of feet. I hope he was dead from the beginning – he fought well, and deserved it.

Ltn Splitgerber was killed becoming Gibb’s fifth victory.

In this example, you can see both aircraft were turning against each other in a horizontal turn fight with no advantage being given. ROFfan, I'm happy to keep producing quotes about the SE5a being able to mix it with the Albatros but you haven't produced a single bit of evidence that the Albatros was dominate yet!

Spoon

That's the key point. The SE5a's RAF series aerofoil is designed to produce low drag at low angles of attack. It helps the aircraft achieve a high speed even with a large wing area, but it doesn't perform well at high angles of attack (as would be the case in a tight turn). The Albatros aerofoil is significantly more cambered so it works better under conditions of high angle of attack, but is more draggy at the low angles of attack needed high speed.

So, unsurprisingly, the SE5a is good at high-speed stuff and the Albatros at twisty-turny stuff.

With respect, not at all.
I see a thread examining if the turn performance gap that we're experience between the SE5a and it's German contemporaries
is anywhere close to historically plausible.

You have completely misunderstood me. I have always said that the SE5a was better, and it is better in RoF, too. If you can't beat the Albatros with the SE5a then you are doing something terribly wrong.

As for the quotes you provided, they are very interesting. Departing the aircraft for a quick snap shot is indeed an unorthodox trick. I would love to learn to do that in any RoF scout.

I'm far from an exceptional pilot but I don't find the AI Albatros to be dominant over my SE5a in any way at any altitude. In fact in my 1917 career and QMB they are quite unthreatening. In any situation I can dive away to extend, pick up speed, outranging them fast, they can't follow. Even close to the ground putting the nose down slightly at full throttle has me accelerating rapidly. Turn rate is similar but I have the edge.

The ROF Pfalz D3a is much more dangerous but still manageable, it doesn't lose as much alt in a turn as my SE5a but then I'm so much faster that I can extend, then climb and attack as I feel like it.

The SE5a never does anything I don't want it to, I can fly right on the edge of a stall all day knowing it wont bite me. None of the ROF Central crates can pursue if I extend, the speed advantage is so great that I'm outside firing range very quickly. If I get shot down flying the SE5a v the AI Albatros or Pfalz I always feel its my own fault tbh.

These first-hand stories are really quite interesting and I enjoy reading them.

They prove to me the very same things I encounter on a daily basis instructing and evaluating todays pilots:

IT AIN'T THE ARROW--------IT'S THE INDIAN (or to those who may be offended-the Native American!)

Totalspoon, you really dont prove anything using anecdotes. Those are so subjective that for fun, using selected anecdotes, I "proved" in RoF boards some time ago that Camel actually was worse turn fighter than D.VII, Albatros and SE5a and should turn like RoF N28 which is modelled correctly.

It still strikes me as quite incredible how different the flight model is compared to the previous version given that all that seamed to be required was not having the engine overrev in a dive.



Very true, the game isn't going to be perfect so we should just fly to the games strengths and forget about anally historical performance detail.

Still wish they would disable the zoom view and shoot though, to my mind that has a bigger impact on tactics and game play.

No, it had also way too climb perfomance before. -> too much of power/thurst or too low drag. Because of that SEa FM was totally reworked using very good primary documents (in which current SE5a FM fits perfectly). Those documents were actually so good/plentifull that it is very unlikely that most other planes gets as accurate FM. There simply is not that accurate data where to compare for most of them.

Perhaps that is the problem then? Relative performance is more relevant.

I've had a couple of "interesting" experiences lately while flying my trusty SE-5...

I mixed it up with a flight of five Alb DIII's and Dv's and with this bunch, I had a hell of a time climbing away from them. I used my "normal" techniques ( which always worked in the past) and I couldn't gain a height advantage, in fact, the only thing that saved me was my ability to put some distance between them and my red-nosed SE.

And now the reason for my post in this thread-The DV and the DRI just showed up in my career and WOW is the DRI hard to kill. People argue about the flight characteristics of the SE but the DRI certainly has it's own issues. I shot the absolute crap out of the first DRI I had to deal with and man, can that thing take some damage and keep on maneuvering!!! I FINALLY shot out the engine of my target (engine cowling looked like it had 10 holes in it!) and when I took a close look at it, the only control surfaces that were left was one badly damaged aileron, half of the elevator and the rudder and man, he was still flyin' his butt off!!!

With all that damage, it looked like he was going to be able to glide back to his side of the lines so I figured I'd put a few more rounds into him to finish it. I took off the other half of the elevator and the plane entered an extremely stable, flat spin that he rode all the way down from around 3 thousand feet. I watched the plane hit the ground and the PILOT SURVIVED!!!

Now THAT'S QUITE A PLANE!!!

And yes, I know people have talked about this for ever-just sayin'.

So, if:

1. it's possible, by *some* pilot accounts, to understand that the SE5a could turn with the Alb (?), maybe by performing some snap tricks (which cannot be 'sustained' for a long time though, IMHO)
2. other planes FM (but not the SE5a) can not be so very accurate due to lack of data

then, it means that the "New SE5A is awful!" ? Shouldn't be instead something like 'relative performance etc. etc.'

I must be SOO old, if such conclusions are already stated from the title; they may want, in the best case, to provoke discussions (by attracting attention), but what remains is the first impression, especially for most of people who don't have the time to read everything. I mean, some plane's FM is *finally* revised, and next follows a thread title like this.

I guess it became norm(al) though, when even documentaries nowadays have catastrophic titles

Don't get me wrong; personally, where there is no technical data, i'd go by taking all possible accounts from all involved parts, i'd multiply/divide each account importance with a number (weighted by friendly opinion, enemy opinion, rookie, ace, author, what was the previous plane the pilot was already used to, what was the general opinion about a plane the pilot has to fly) and then i'd go statistical until most of these accounts would prove possible in RoF - using good MP players. I think the previous paragraph shows just a 'simple' model of doing it, but already too complex from a practical point of view.


EDIT: Just for reference, a similar thread (in a way: note the different title and tone) on the official forums: http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=24569 Keyword: relative

Another quick question for you-should the SE5 be able to outclimb the Pfalz DIII?

I just came across one of them for the first time in my SE5 career and I could out run him but I sure couldn't outclimb him. I flew the DIII a long time ago in the "old" career but I apparently forgot just how good it was at turnin' and burnin'-man, he ate my lunch. I forgot that he could dive really well too so I picked up a few bullet holes on that maneuver! Fortunately I got some separation and was able to get away. My mechanics are gonna be pi$$ed when they see how much work they're gonna have to do to get my bird flyable again!!!!

Wonder why the hotshots didn't want to fly the P DIII-it sure seemed to outfly the heck out of my SE5...

One last question-I've been using 70 indicated for VY-is that the right airspeed for the SE5?

The SE5a should be able to outclimb the the Pfalz D.IIIa. In RoF, the D.IIIa is a very good turner, so trying to turn and burn with it is a losing game in an SE5a.

It should IF the pilot keeps it at best climb speed.

Chucking the nose skyward and expecting to outclimb anything is the wrong way to do things.

Which is why I asked what VY was for the SE5---not the climb angle.....

And for those who don't know, VY is the airspeed of a particular aircraft that will, besides other things, give the greatest rate of climb for that machine. It also gives the lowest rate of descent in autorotation and it's the speed that requires the least amount of power to fly the aircraft.

I'd go a little faster, about 72-75mph.

But of all the scouts, I think the AI is best in the Pfalz D.IIIa. Trying to attack 3 or more of those from above is like standing over a pit of hungry crocodiles. They each take turns doing tail stands, spraying bullets vertically into the air.

Not so sure about that, I find that although the SE5a is primarily a BnZ plane, when caught low and slow it is also a great stall fighter, I find a quick bunt with a bit of slip just as your opponent is about to shoot usually commits them to overshoot, generally right in front of your guns, of course you then want to make sure if you have the height that you split s put the nose down and gain some separation and height before you rejoin the fight.

I've had 4 or 5 enemy on my tail at times and outlasted them with barely a bullet hitting me just by staying slow and slipping and sliding to throw off their aim, you wont get many kills this way but in a pinch it might get you back to base in one piece.

QFT.

I long ago dropped the idea of "Turn" or "Boom and Zoom" fighters, as it's a road to ruin.

All fighters are energy fighters.

The difference is the energy band they work best within. A number of P-51's were lost in Korea attempting to shoot down the ultra uber Po-2 as an extreme example. The Mustang pilots were attempting to shoot them down by flying very low at the limits of stall and manuever against plywood biplanes.

That didn't mean the Po-2 was superior to the Mustang, or that the Mustang was modelled incorrectly.

In WWI planes it can be really dramatic - the Nieuport 11 is a fine aircraft and very lethal as designed when matched against aircraft within the same energy band. However, how it acted within that zone was different depending on its adversary.

Against a Taube the N11 was best served in slashing attacks, as the Taube lived in a lower energy "home" and matching it would put the N11 below its own best performance envelope. Against an Eindecker it could both outclimb and out turn - dealer's choice, as the energy bands weren't that far off. Against the first Albatros it was forced to carefully manage its energy and try to get the Hun to bring his plane down to the N11 energy "home," as it was below where the Albatros best worked at.

The SE5a isn't a dog by any stretch, or inferior. It just has a higher energy level demand than the Pfalz for a host of reasons. The Pfalz driver who's thinking will always try to get the SE5a to expend too much of his energy while staying within his own optimum range.

DR1's, of course, are hilarious and it's clear why they were produced in such small numbers and quickly removed from the front lines. Once a fellow in a peer aircraft realizes it's a one trick pony they're not too much of a threat - the smart English or French pilot that spots one early can dictate the fight. Loads of fun in multiplayer taking a stab at a DR1, flying well out of his gun range, climbing, and either ignoring him as one climbs, letting him chase at ever increasing distances (invariably blowing his energy and making him easy prey for the SPAD he didn't see), or re-engaging. Even in a supposed "dogfight" they're relatively easy to manage if one stays within one's energy band and doesn't try to match their speed.

The flip side is true as well. I shot down the overblown DR1 in single and multiplayer in Nieuport 11's and DH2's by reversing the tactic on them, forcing them to fly too slow in an attempt to match maneuvers. Once they're within five miles an hour of stall they'll either be fair game or forced to dive away - letting the "inferior" aicraft pick up even more energy (airspeed or altitude).

We have to get to the difference between an FM problem and badly programmed AI. "Standing on their tails" as we have all seen the AI do is not an FM problem. They pull up, they stall, they fall away, no problem. The problem is the sniper AI. The AI gets away with this maneuver because in that microsecond that it has you in its sights it snaps off a well placed burst and you die. It's not about the maneuver - which is really a horrible idea - it's about the fact that the AI can hit anything while doing it. Think about it, if not for the silly accuracy, this maneuver is guaranteed death.

Suggestion: Place a timer in the code - AI must have a firing solution for a set period of time before it opens fire. Solution timer should start when the target is within an n degree cone in front of the AI aircraft. Solution timer stops when target is outside of this cone. This would stop silly accurate snap shots. Said time could be as little as 1 or 2 seconds, but should be more than 2 milliseconds. Adjust timer based on play testing. Put timer in an ini file to allow tweaking by the user.

Suggestion: Try to code the AI to fly the aircraft within a reasonable envelope. The better the AI the closer to the edge of the envelope it comes. AI should try not to stall as that is a bad thing.

RoF doesn't use ini files currently. Not saying they can't or shouldn't just saying they seem reluctant to make it moddable...

Because FM modding pulls apart communities rather than bring them together IMHO - it's small enough as it is so I'm totally against FM modding.

I was with you until that sentence.

That's not FM modding. That's AI modding, which we already do.

I like the idea of an AI "aiming" timer but it needs to be fixed for everyone. Hardcoded.

Apologies if the INI comment threw a wrench in the discussion. That was not a all the primary point. Started a new thread for AI discussions. Let the SE5a debate continue .

Yep

Couldnt agree more!

+1 this ^^^

I hope folks read this and take it to heart: tactics dictate the fight, not the aircraft.