In case you haven't seen the news at the official forums, the Nieuport 17 flight model is being reviewed for 1.022!

For a roll rate reduction? :P

*edit* Thanks for the heads-up - hopefully time to celebrate

Further information: some words about Newport 17

Hate to change the subject alittle bit but why did they stop producing the Pfalz DIII? Man, that thing is a beast!!!

If I get anywhere near the same level of one in my trusty SE-5 I have my hands full bigtime. If I don't stay a good bit above one, they'll hang on the prop and spray the hell out of my aircraft!!! If you try to turn more than 180 degrees with one without killing it, you'd better break off as it can do a 180 and be in my face in a heartbeat! I know that the DIII was a good diver but I don't think that it can dive as fast as my SE-5, well except here. I can have the airspeed indicator needle buried and the DIII is right with me not losing an inch!!!

First off, boom and zoom + SE-5, yeah I get it.

Can't figure out why so many of the aces hated it and considered it to be second or even third rate. I'm pretty good in my SE-5 for overall listings in the campaign mode under 56 Squadron (if I do say so myself! :D) but I definitely don't turn with them more than about 90 degrees. I think the thing that bugs me the most is that when I dive on one I'm indicating almost 140 mph, never dive through their altitude, pull up quickly and with all that when I pass they are on my ass in the climb shooting like crazy and THAT'S what I don't understand........

Heck, I feel better about shooting down two DIII's in a mission than I do shooting down four DFW's.

Ahhh, I feel better now-------disregard all after!!!!

Try diving a Pfalz D.IIIa yourself and see how fast you can go compared to the SE5a's max dive speed. Use simple instruments.

Well, same sentiments here Copter, with a bunch of other guys spectating on me 2 years ago I tried to dive the Pfalz 3 till it broke up, and I mean I was in a 90 degree dive for what felt like minutes!
That thing just refused break up!! Why was everyone in The Blue Max moaning about how terrible a crate it was?

Was playing on the Newb Dogfight server yesterday trying to get some hours in with the Spad VII to get used to the extremely nervous rudder of that thing, and got my tail handed to me on a plate every time I went out.. Tanut the Fokker D.VII; Almost everyone on whats supposed to be the losing side of the coin were flying those terrible out of date Pfalz but that didnt stop them from making my day extremely frustrating! LOL

HAH, that's a hoot! Just finished a mission against two DRI's and two DFW's-shot them all down and the DRI's were WAAAAAAY easier to deal with than that lousy, out-of-date Pfalz!!!!

Don't get me wrong-this sim is the best thing since sliced bread and I'm sure with time things will mature. If they don't-hell, I don't care, it's too much damned fun to fly!!!

Can we have a RFC version with a lewis on the top and no vickers? Please... The foster mounted lewis gun is already modelled for the SE5a

Spoon

I fly the Pfalz III when it's available but it isn't a 'super-plane'. It's not as fast as the D.Va or DVII, nor does it climb as well. BUT, it's very maneuverable. It also bleeds energy like crazy in a very tight turn and has a hard time recovering it due to lack of horsepower. When I fly it, I try to stay well away from Camels and Pups. A good Sopwith driver can make fairly short work of a Pfalz. Most of the Spad and SE5 drivers will give in to the temptation to turn with it and make themselves easy meat. If they have the altitude to dive out, though, they can easily dive away from the Pfalz. Sometimes a lucky shot from long range can get them before they get away, but not always.

The Pfalz III kind of reminds me of two of my favorites from Il-2: the Ki-27 and Ki-43. Just like in those, once you join combat you are committed to either winning or dying. There usually isn't an in-between. LOL

The issue with the Pfalz (and to a lesser extent the Albatros D.III/D.V) is that in real life, they used very thin, high camber wings. These wings were design dead-ends as, though they produced very high CL numbers, they also produced some nasty stall characteristics and tricky low speed handeling. When the the German's switched to thick, high camber wings, with high CL numbers but docile flight characteristics, the German pilots loved it.

In ROF, the high CL numbers for the phalz and albatros airfoils are modeled without any side effects, giving the Germans in 1917, an aircraft every bit as good as the Fokker D.VII would be in mid 1918. No real WW1 pilot would have taken a Pfalz D.III over a Fokker D.VII but in ROF, there's really nothing between them...

Spoon

They certainly modelled the downsides of the D.XII airfoil. As for the Pfalz D.III - it is certainly superb, and probably excessively so on some points - but you'll have to conceed that the speed of the D.III isn't 'every bit as good'. Isn't it the thick airfoil which gives the RoF D.III it's prowess?

That's the point, the Pfalz aerofoil wasn't that thick, but had a lot of camber - giving high lift, but very nasty stalls:



Compare this with the Fokker DVII wing section, which gave high lift with a very forgiving stall characteristic:



Notice also the relatively blunt nose of the Fokker aerofoil - this helps to ensure that the airflow doesn't separate from the front of the aerofoil as CLmax is approached, but from the rearmost portions first.

Compare these with the RAF-15 section of the SE5a, not high lift, but a relatively docile stall:




W.

Are you reading wikipedia?

Better sources indicate the Albatros series was easy to fly, and without bad tendencies. When wikipedia says that the Pfalz D.III "spun readily," the article they cite for this claim says nothing like it. Rather, it describes how pilots found it useful that the Pfalz could be spun intentionally as a ruse.

Be careful before you believe what you believe.

Well that doesn't really make sense either, (almost) any aircraft can be spun intentionally. The DIII might have a very rapid flick roll capability though, however I'd argue that if the stall onset is very rapid it would be exceedingly difficult to judge exactly when to put in pro-spin controls before the aerofoil is fully stalled.

W.

You're climbing too quickly or too steeply and losing your advantage by giving him room to turn inside your egress. Either try a shallower egress from the attack with a roll out of plane to get away, (Hit, extend outside his gun envelope and then climb at a more shallow angle) or, if he is very low on energy, pull more aggressively to keep him in trail until he spends all his energy and then come down and smash him.

I thought about this a bit more: I suspect that the author was meaning that the rapidity with which the aircraft could be put into a spin was useful. One could infer from this that the dynamic stall condition was relatively short-lived due to the sharpness of the aerofoil nose, but that too would indicate that the normal stall wasn't particularly friendly.

W.

You might use Wikipedia for sources ROFfan but I don't

If you want quotes about the Albatros and Pfalz not having perfect handleing, try this one...

James McCudden
“On 5 November I went to Hendon with Capt Clive Collet to fly a V-Strutter Albatros which he had for demonstration purposes, and I had a nice ride in it, but I could not think how the German pilots could manoeuvre them so well, for they were certainly not easy to handle.”

Spoon

[quote=JimmyBlonde You're climbing too quickly or too steeply and losing your advantage by giving him room to turn inside your egress. Either try a shallower egress from the attack with a roll out of plane to get away, (Hit, extend outside his gun envelope and then climb at a more shallow angle) or, if he is very low on energy, pull more aggressively to keep him in trail until he spends all his energy and then come down and smash him. [/quote]

Actually the thing that's alittle annoying about this whole thing is illustrated in two of your statements.

How is the Pfalz able to get its nose up when I've watched it complete two 360's with one of my wingmen on its tail before I dive on it? I would assume that it's burned up all of its "expendable" energy. The Pfalz is also capable of gaining a height advantage during repeated turns which also seems odd. I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't really seem to run OUT of energy. this came into focus when I realized it was alot harder to dogfight the DIII than the DRI and that seems kinda odd to me.

I'm guessing the spin statement is the person is saying the Pfalz was easy to get OUT of a spin (unlike most of the ROF birds-which I've never understood :D) so it was thought by some to be a useful technique.

Also I must confess that I'm using the Mod AI install-maybe all of the DIII drivers are Aces????

Doesn't really matter-just sayin's all!!! It'll take years to actually get to know all of the aircraft this sim has to offer and THAT'S whats REALLY awesome!!! What's cool is that the ROF guys are still interested in tweaking the sim so who knows how much more awesome it can become!

That could mean a million different things. But fortunately we know a little bit more about the D.V's handling from the Vintage Aviator replica. Basically, the D.V's controls were not well balanced compared to the SE5a. The elevator was too sensitive, and the ailerons and rudder gave insufficient response. This is poorly represented in RoF's D.Va, but it's more believable in the Albatros D.III.

You can read the article here: http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/aircraft/albatros-dva/notes-flying-d-va

"The Albatros doesn’t appear to have any nasty habits in flight. Stalls with and without power are straight forward without a huge wing drop, they are preceded by plenty of warning and easily corrected."

Sorry for the wikipedia comment. I've observed many people in the past read the article on the Pfalz D.III and take it at its word simply because it cites other articles.

As a frequent flier of the Pfalz D.III in just about every WW1 sim there has been, I have a few things to say about it I've noticed across the board:

The thing can turn, and turn well... With one exception - It doesn't have any energy left once you exit the turn, or any energy to climb while in the turn. This is great for circle turns, but don't try and gain any altitude while turning! You will stall out and lose even more energy.

The Pfalz D.III is very forgiving, you can yank and bank almost all day with one exception - Extremely low speeds. Stalling at very low speeds in a Pfalz D.III will get you killed. If you happen to spin at high speeds it's really no problem to exit the spin. When I turn fight up high, I purposefully put the plane into a spin to get behind my enemies and/or to confuse them. That works well!

The top speed of the Pfalz D.III sux - Alb D.III's can out run me! Nuff said.

The Pfalz D.III is a great stable gun platform. I can put more rounds on target in a Pfalz while turning with my enemy than in just about any other aircraft.

Yeah I had that experience the other day. I was flying the SE5a as well, and was on my way home from a mission bombing
an airbase. I noticed 3 bogeys over the lines heading my way, so I turned toward them.
Turns out I didn't climb enough, and passed them head on just below. Well before I know it I have a bandit on my tail, so I figure
"no problem" again and dive. 'sound of bullets ripping through my crate" So again with the "no problem" attitude and just push the stock
forward and peg the indicator and then some. More bullets ripping through my fuselage and wings. WTF? I had to have been going
almost 200!

I had to crash land and run away! LOL
Fortunately I was on my side of the lines.

Yeah, they can be some wascully wabbuts sometimes---been there, done that!

CD, the Pfalz is pretty much a helicopter, the only way you can be sure that it is low on energy is when it's actually in a spin.

Going back to the Vintageaviator website, I found this comment (in the n.11 section) interesting:

"As with many WWI types the nieuport is tail heavy and requires a fair amount of forward stick to maintain level flight."

It would seem that the devs got that aspect of the FM right.

The hang on the prop thing happens all the time no matter what I am flying against. I gain a nice alt advantage and my opponent pulls all the way back on the stick in a full stall, snaps off a shot from a couple hundred yards at the peak of that stall, and poof,I'm in flames.

+1, I find this very annoying, It makes me question why anyone thought the D VII was something special because it could reputedly hang on it's prop.

Given the attention to detail with regard to the flight models, although considering how different the new correct SE5a is compared to the old what can be considered correct or accurate ? Maybe it's the environment through which the aircraft fly rather than simply the flight model sophistication or lack thereof.

On reflection, I suppose the problem, if any, is that because RoF goes "by the numbers" rather than canned responses the sim is very good at the general characteristics of the individual aircraft but because of a lack of real world sophistication something is lost in translation when it comes to the idiosyncrasies that really define why some aircraft were better than others. Or as some wit phrased it "No Sh*t Sherlock".

More true than you know with any true physics-based engine. It's impossible to model all of the microdrag and airfoil-like surfaces that go on with a modern computer.

What? No more #%&*$# about the D.Va and its highly cambered wing that should cause abrupt stalls?

As for prophanging, it's not the prophanging that's the problem. The thing to look at is the high lethality, i.e. high concentration of bullets, at long range relative to historical record: WW1 air combat took place at pistol range, or closer!

RoFfan,
Thank you, for the heads up! I have always wanted to take a crack at the N17. Now I can use her as my pre-SPAD 7 150hp, ride. If A.P. does as good a job, on the N17, as he did on the SE5a, I think I will really like the N17, a lot and use her a whole lot more. S! MJ

Hah, that's the fact Jack!

The other thing that kills me is that the DIII can basically do a pedal turn reversal (which means it's about done flying) and can STILL pull the nose up to shoot the crap out of me!!! Dude, the helo didn't come out for a long time and THEY couldn't hardly hover out of ground effect!!!

THAT'S one powerful aircraft---oh wait, it wasn't that powerful!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, nowadays it takes an Extra 300 with 500 hp to do that!!!!

ROFfan, I'm talking about the POWER-ON stall of a combat loaded WWI fighter while you're talking about the POWER-OFF stall of a lightly loaded modern replica. They're different things.

It's always a struggle arguing with a German aviation lover. While most aviation enthusiasts accept that at some periods of both World Wars, the Allies wore the boot and did the kicking, at other times, the boot was on the other foot and the Axis were swinging it. For your diehard German aviation lover such as ROFfan or Mig77, they cannot accept that at any point during either World War, did the Germans not have superior aircraft, superior tactics, superior training, superior weapons, superior moral... ect. In WWI, this attitude is most pronounced during the Albatros/Pfalz period of late 1917 - early 1918. To the 'Luftwhiner' mind, as there is undeniable proof of the superior energy performance of the SE5a and SPAD, the Albatros and Pfalz obviously were much more manoeuvrable and hence, cancelled out the allies performance advantage. That the allies might have possessed superior machines at that point in the War is not a possibility, despite what guys like Richthofen or Von Tutschek said...

In a letter to his friend Oblt Fritz von Falkenhayn on the Luftstreitskafte staff on 18 July 1917, von Richthofen complained….


Oblt von Tutschek on the SE5, 200hp SPAD and Bristol Fighter compared to the Albatros


Anybody who has done reading from the diaries and journals of the pilots at this time will know that the SE5a's, Dolphin's and Spads were happy to mix it with the Albatros and Pfalz. Guys like the great Mick Mannock might always like to start the fight from a position of advantage; "Always above, seldom on the same level, never underneath," but once the fight was on, he was happy to mix it with his SE5a

Here's a classic dogfight between Mick Mannock and a well flown Pfalz on 21st May 1918. The story was told by Ltn. Van Ira:


Now try this in ROF and you'll get your arse shot off.
If the Albatros was as good a dogfighter as the 'Luftwhiners' make out, and the SE5a could only survive by Booming-and-Zooming, then how did the original 150hp SE5 survive. The original 56 Squadron pilots did quite well in them, despite noting that the Albatros D.III's could out climb them.

Now, as I'm almost certainly going to be banned for having made this post, I bid you gents Goodbye.

Spoon

Spoon, if you're getting banned, I'm getting banned and I don't see it at all. Chill!!!!

And by the way, loved your post!!!! Dead nutz on!

Just remember-doesn't change a thing as this is the best sim I've ever had the pleasure of flying. In fact, it's the only sim I run.

Hahaha, Spoon I've seen more than one case of Teutonic Uberitis Avionicus around the internets.

They latch on to an anecdote like: "Zis vun time, at band kampfen, I shot an allied fighter with vun shot from mein uberwunderkannon and he exploded like an overstuffed bratwurst." and tote it around like a tarts' handbag.

You can be lethal in any armed aircraft, Pfalz, DVa, N.17, Se5a, whatever all as they are. It's a credit to 777 that they apply a scientific approach to their work where nothing is above being re-examined and I'm excited about flying the new N.17.

Totalspoon, you did not comprehend Gene DeMarco's comments about the D.Va (or you didn't bother to read them). It's also clear that you didn't bother to educate yourself about how this replica was constructed. Finally, your attempt at an ad hominem demonstrates conclusively that you are not worth talking to. Good day to you!

So, what was this thread about again originally?

Hi ROFfan,

Yep mate, I read Gene DeMarco's comments. As highlighted in Bold and Capitals in my last post... He's talking about a POWER-OFF stall while I'm talking about a POWER-ON stall. They're at opposite ends of the same flight envelope.

@ Choperdrvr

I used the L world in my last post. Thats usually cause for an immediate banning...

Stay Frosty

Spoon

@ JimmyBlonde



LMAO...

Spoon

Awesome. Thanks!

I have seen folks on both sides of the fence offer up bits of anecdotal evidence as proof positive. Care to tell an American fan-boy that his P-51 isn't perfect? You'll get the same response as the guy who wants his German plane (in truth I see this more with German tanks than planes, but anyway ...) to be the greatest thing in the sky ... or the SE5a ... or the DRI. IMHO anybody that thinks these PoVs are all coming from one"side" are deluded.

Let me offer up a couple of reasons why the Pfalz might be better than the SE5a in this game that have nothing to do bad flight modeling or grand Teutonic conspiracies.

Let's start with this premise: in real life the Pfalz probably could out turn and out dive an SE5a - but probably not by that much. The Pfalz was also probably more rugged and the gun placement generally offered more lead on target. The SE5a could certainly out run and out climb the Pfalz by a pretty wide margin. In the hands of a skilled pilot this made the SE5a a much more dangerous opponent than the Pfalz.

Now let's go to flight sim land, where the AI ... turns. And turns. And turns. An SE5a in the hands of the AI has just negated the vast majority of the plane's advantages.

AI pilots in flight sim land have another curious quirk ... they are great shots. Their poor piloting skills allow you to get the advantage, but then they compensate for it by pulling their planes into a full stall - just long enough to loose a quick burst before they fall away. And yes, one of those three bullets finds is way between your eyes or through your fuel tank.

totalspoon - there is a difference between mixing it up and totally abdicating your aircraft's advantages. I am willing to bet that folks like Mannock and McCudden understood their aircraft and how to fight with it. I am willing to bet that they mixed speed and vertical maneuvers with the horizontal. I am willing to bet that during combat they continuously tried to maintain a better energy state than their opponent.

If you can tell me that the SE5a is slower than the Pfalz and climbs worse then yes, we have an FM problem. If you are flying the SE5a properly and cannot get above a Pfalz then there is probably a problem. If you do all of that and then get nailed when the AI driven Pfalz drills you with an absurd snap shot that no real pilot would even attempt, then it's the game.

Blasphemy! The P-51 IS perfect, I'll see you at dawn with the weapon of your choice sirrah, my second will be along to make the arrangements!

(You're dead right by the way.)

In a magazine article Gene Demarco says that the Vintage Aviator Dva has poor aileron response but is seriously pitch sensitive. he doesn't seem impressed with its flight character at all. One of his comments is that its a great looking plane but its a shame it doesn't fly as great as it looks.

Both WW1 aces Cecil Lewis and Roderick Dallas were unimpressed by captured Albatros, Lewis (irc) commenting that he couldn't understand how German pilots he'd faced could get such impressive performance from the heavy unresponsive controls. Lewis was probably comparing the Albatros DVa with his SE5a though. The SE5 was noted for having good aileron response and nicely harmonised controls for a WW1 plane.

Read the rest of the thread. Poor aileron and rudder response were already noted, but what you did leave out is DeMarco's description of the stall characteristics.

We can put aside the fact that British did not test captured aircraft with the appropriate fuel; everyone knows the D.Va was not the equal of the SE5a or Spad. But this whole debate started over claims that the D.Va should stall sharply, and that just isn't borne out by DeMarco's description, power on or power off.

Well, given his description of the wing flexure - a soft/flexible stall is almost to be expected from a soft/flexible airframe

Sharp stall, high camber might be a fair description of that wing made from modern/rigid materials or in model dimensions/weights, but it doesn't sound very like his depiction of a visibly deforming upper wing...

Patrick, they are some "xpert" snipers, aren't they!!!!

I think that the DIII could dive like a rock but I would think that it's "unique" airfoil would limit its maximum airspeed in the dive. I'm sure it could dive full out but I can't believe that it's terminal velocity would equal that of the SE-5. The SE's airfoil is fairly flat but I'd assume that because of the DIII's airfoil, things happen.

You can't make lift without drag and I'll admit I'm more of a rotary wing aerodynamics guy but I would think that the DIII's airfoil would increase its lift coefficient (and therefore its drag) significantly with speed.

There are exactly two places where i ever read anything about the "fact" that any of the Albatros planes had a dangerous stall behaviour or spin. Those places are the official ROF forums and these forums.

Every flight report i read about Albatros sesquiplanes, either from British or German pilots, say that the plane did not have any vices like that. So i'm not sure why people bring this up every time.

As for the Pfalz which "spun readily", that's true. But that's not necessarily meant as a dangerous stall behaviour or nasty spin either. More often than not, it's what saved Pfalz pilots from getting killed in disadvantageous situations. The pilots enforced that spin, they didn't fear a spin. One Pfalz test pilot (what was his name) even noted how well the Pfalz behaved at low speeds and how landings were very easy. I did read one report which says that the Pfalz (doesn't say D.III or D.IIIa) had a dangerous spin and that's Wikipedia.

The Albatros planes in ROF definately seem to have too balanced controls, especially the D.II and D.Va, which roll very well and have a very sensitive elevator. Atleast the former seems unlikely to be correct. Control response regarding ailerons is always considered to be quite bad. The D.III does roll noticably worse than the other Albatros planes.

The Pfalz D.IIIa in ROF is some weird UFO, which is highly maneuverable, extremely slow and quite bad in a dive. If a FM review would confirm that this behaviour is alright and "realistic", so be it. I have my doubts.

I think the Albatros D.III does have a pretty good flightmodel. Its performance is close to sources for a Johannisthal D.III. Sources are rare for German planes. Its maneuverability is OK for an inline-engine plane, but it can't outmaneuver any planes it shouldn't outmaneuver (assuming the N17 will be able to outmaneuver it after the FM fix), plus its roll is quite limited. It's OK in a dive (dives WERE the standard offensive and defensive maneuver for the Albatros, even with the oh so fragile lower wing..), but can't outdive any of the Entente inline-engine planes.

The D.Va and D.II are both significantly worse performers regarding climb and speed, but have a slightly tighter turn and much better roll and stall behaviour. Which is especially weird about the D.II, because it has to outmaneuver every Entente plane to survive, it can't even run from a N11, but it has absolutely zero problem outmaneuvering it. I think all that is quite hard to explain (especially in the comparison of D.III with the D.Va). FM review shouldn't hurt there either.

Regardless, all Mercedes engines in ROF behave like they have an automatic mixture. So they basically lose no speed at higher altitude at all (Albatros for instance have pretty much the same TAS at ground-level aswell as 5000 meter). So that is indeed a problem and it does become a very significant problem when you actually test these planes at high altitudes (i highly recommend Albatros D.Va vs. SE5a at 5000 meters). After you've done that, you will realise that something is wrong and needs to be changed.

The aim of every flightsim is to be as realistic as possible, taking technical limitations and lack of sources into account. Wether or not a plane turns out to be a dud or some uberplane is absolutely insignificant. So bashing each other heads in just makes no sense and it definately won't make this flightsim any better. It's quite obvious that the devs are capable at getting FMs right eventually (see SE5a and hopefully the new N17). I just takes time.

Well said.

Even the D.VII?

Let's get back to what this thread is supposed to be about.. The Nieuport 17 (new revised edition) should be released, hopefully today with the latest patch.
I will look forward then to the comments and impressions from all you professionals on how she flies. I've held back on the 17's career, only flying it for a bit of fun here and there, but haven't fully got to grips with it yet, so I'm very interested to see how this latest edition will fare.

+1, Well said!

I am not a real pilot so I don't know, however, it seems to me that the roll rates in general are generous. I have found this to be the case with every WWI sim that I have ever played.

I have always read that roll rates of WWI planes were limited due to not so modern aileron design. Rudder was heavily relied on to induce roll and ailerons were almost more for correction and coordination than initiation. One of the notable things about the D.VII was that it was one of the first to correct this.

My guess is that the physics are limited by knowledge of the old planes and the capabilities of our PC. As a result we get roll rates based largely on placement and size of ailerons while losing some of the subtleties in modeling the less efficient shapes. I am guessing that RoF does better modeling than most, but it is obviously not an easy thing to properly model a 90+ year old design and still make it runnable in the scope of a PC game.

I seem to remember when RoF was 'Knights of the Sky' that things like airfoil shape/cross section (i.e. "less efficient shape") was mentioned as being taken into account in modeling flight characteristics. Not being inflammatory here, but was this just big talk?

Of course I think we all agree it is approaching/bending a sophistication level of our simple home PC's. Again, I wonder what the boundaries are?

Sorry, I skimmed the first page.

I didn't realise that DeMarco's DVa article was available on the website now, I remember it being in a magazine. The VA probably agreed to keep it off the website for a year or so.

Not going to pretend full knowledge here, but a nicely researched book by Leon Bennett (Three wings for the Red Baron) the sesquiplane wing of the DIII was known to flex, flutter, and was terminally unsound in a dive. It's the reason they put in another beam in the little wing and that small brace at the bottom of the V-strut in the DV/DVa. Richtofen railed against the later Albatroses.

This ain't modeled...

I was referring to the Pfalz DIII, an aircraft known for its diving capabilities, not the Alb. DIII which was well known to have lower wing problems due to misplacement of lower wing spar too far aft.

That's what they get for copying the French!!! I can't believe they never came across any Nieuports that had shed their lower wings.

Oops! Apologies, but the diving Alb DIII characteristic is something that has been bugging me and I read between the lines...
Wrt the quote above, I imagine a Nieuport with a shed lower wing doesn't leave much behind to do a crash analysis

ROFFan said


ROFFan, are you really trying to tell me they were legal allowed to build a plane known for having structural failures unaltered and then flew it through hard power on stalls.... LMAO

Spoon

Did you read the site at all? They replicate things like the round control cables as opposed to the british streamlined cables because that's what albatrosses had.

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/aircraft/albatros-dva/creating-new-albatros

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/reference/cable-splicing

They've put a great deal of work in re learning how to manufacture planes from almost 100 years ago. That they use ash wood in the albatross like the ww 1 examples indicate that yes the rebuilt the things with the same structural weaknesses as they're using the same materials and the factory drawings and reverse engineering from the two remaining museum examples.

I'll bet the Alb D.III does dive like a stone once those nasty wings are got rid of. Very streamlined at that point.

Yeah, it does have a really aerodynamic shape to the fuselage.

Looks like it would turn into a great lawn dart!!! I've sent many of them down sans wings and the terminal velocity was high enough to strip off the tail surfaces.

Funny thing is that the whole fuse will be laying there after impact-shouldn't be anything left but splinters, two machine guns and an engine....

While an interesting interlude was had here, I'd like to return to the title of the topic and say I spent some quality time in the N17 this long weekend and thoroughly enjoyed the reprise FM.

On one particular mission the windsock was horizontal (and wouldn't you know, we had to take off with the tail wind...). This led to some rather peculiar handling characteristics; I could not make a left turn into the wind, even with full left rudder to keep the nose down. And it wasn't just me, my 2 AI wingmates were being tossed around the sky like paper kites in that wind, while an Alb DII was dancing on our heads...

White-knuckled, heart-racing, emotionally exhausting at mission end, the N17 is still not for the feint-of-heart, but it sure is rewarding when you get a kill and make it home. I love this ride.

The wind bug raises its ugly head again: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3043451/1.html

I was hoping this had been resolved.

W.

Winger, I vaguely remember reading that thread, and thanks for bringing it back to attention.
However, the "strong crosswind causing one's aircraft to roll into the wind" is not what I experienced with the N17 as above.

I had a strong cross wind at my 9 o'clock (which did not affect the N17 in steady flight, as far as I remember) but when I tried to roll into the wind, i.e. make a port turn, I could not. I could 'feel' the wind fight back, lift the left wing and push the nose back. No amount of co-ordinated left rudder could keep the nose down. I simply could not turn into the wind over and over again in the dogfight.

Now, I imagine a left turn in an N17 would already be fighting the torque effects of the rotary engine, but this was well beyond that.

I don't know if this describes a "wind bug", I'm only the messenger, not a pilot in RL but I pretend at being one...

It sounds like the wind is a constant force that isn't getting proper vector resolution. No matter how fast you go, it always behaves as if the wind is giving the same force on you as you'd get at rest.
So while flying at low speeds during takeoff and landing it will push you around, at speed it should affect your ground track but not something like that.
I'll have to see if I experience the same thing, I don't recall a windy flight lately.




The Jedi Master

It is not exacly wind case but rather too strong gyro moment in new N17. It is the same story like with Dr1. I think new N17 had too strong gyro moment now which cause difficult to left bank also it casue strange stall behaviour of these plane. I would like see rather less gyro moment (more like it was before) but also more nasty stall and spin characterisitic of N17.

Ah, well that would be easy to test. If you can't roll left and you suspect it's the wind, make a 180 degree turn to the right and try to roll left! Since the wind can't blow from 2 different directions if it works = wind, if it fails again = torque.



The Jedi Master

I could bank left with little difficulty when the wind was not at my 9 o'clock.
I suspect it is a combination of the gyroscopic effect but mostly the wind that caused what I experienced, but look forward to somebody else chiming in, please.

That said, the gyroscopic effect of the smaller Le Rhone in the N17 should not be comparable to bigger rotaries in the Camel. It should be there, yes, but not something to have to struggle against. Just IMHO of course...

A steady wind should have essentially zero effect on the aircraft performance (airspeed/agility/turn) in the air. It should affect the position of the air packet over the ground, and thus ground track indirectly. Apart from minor second order terms the behaviour of an aircraft flying in a steady wind, and visually tracking a moving ground reference should be indistinguishable.

Yes, that was pretty much covered in the thread Winger linked to above.

However, as I mentioned before, that old thread discussed how the aircraft would unnaturally want to roll into the wind -- in the N17 I could not roll into a strong cross wind, and when I tried, experienced extreme adverse yaw despite rudder to correct. There also could have been wind gusting involved, I don't remember, I was distracted by the dogfight...

I don't suppose you could've had some battle damage to the ailerons that could've contributed? One thing I've noticed in ROF is you can get hit and fail to see any damage but still "feel" it.



The Jedi Master