Is the Pfalz (and to a lesser extent the Albatros) too maneuverable in ROF?

If one studies historical accounts of the Fokker Dr.I from the RFC perspective, one will find lots of glowing accounts of its superior maneuverability to the allied inline fighters.

Quotes like this by Major Crowe (from 27 Mar 1918) are common,
“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”

Or this quote from James Mccudden (23 Sept, 1917)
“The German pilot saw us and turned in a most disconcertingly quick manner, not a climbing nor Immelmann turn, but a sort of flat half spin. By now the German triplane was in the middle of our formation, and its handling was wonderful to behold. The pilot seemed to be firing at all of us simultaneously, and although I got behind him a second time, I could hardly stay there for a second. His movements were so quick and uncertain that none of us could hold him in sight at all for any decisive time”

With the Dr.I having a decisive advantage in a dogfight over the allied inline fighters, inline pilots were warned NOT to dogfight them. Here’s an example of such a warning.

From one of Mick Mannock's London Colney training lectures as quoted by student Frederick Oughton:
“You'll be flying SE5's when you get your flights. The Huns have produced a good triplane fighter--a Fokker Triplane. It's easier to handle than the SE5, but not as fast. But it isn't strong and several of them have broken up in the air, diving. But you can dive an SE as fast as you like! When we get to war don't ever attempt to dogfight a triplane on anything like equal terms in altitude. He'll get on your tail and stay there until he shoots you down.”

British inline pilots understood the Dr.I had the advantage in a turn fight and strove to avoid it.

In ROF, the Pfalz can also easily flog the allied inlines in a turn fight. German aviation enthusiasts love to produce stats showing how the Pfalz wing designs produced 60% more lift than an allied wing and hence could easily whip them in a turn. So surely, just like the Dr.I we will find lots of historical documents stating how impressively maneuverable the Pfalz was and warning allied pilots to never dogfight with the Pfalz. Well surprisingly we find none. Here’s plenty of examples….

George A. Vaughn, 84 Sqn RAF, 17th Aero Sqn, USAS:
“The early aircraft I ran into were Pfalz and Albatros. The Pfalz as a rule was a more or less cumbersome airplane and we didn’t worry about the Pfalz. The Albatros was a little bit better, but of course the best fighter that the Germans had was the Fokker D.VII. That’s the one that gave us the most trouble.”

McDonald 56 Sqdn: A formation of 12 SE’s from No. 56 Sqn took off at 12:35 on 24 March 1918. After a series of running fights, MacDonald recalled: “I found myself alone and almost immediately spotted a Hun. He was a single-seater Pfalz scout. I had seen a model of this machine and had been told that Pfalz scouts were slow and not of much account. I got in a burst on him at close range and he went down completely out of control."

Summary of Air Intelligence No. 17.
On 26 Feb 1918, Vzfw Hegeler of Jasta 15 was captured in Pfalz D.III 4184/17. The "Summary of Air Intelligence No. 17" reported that Hegeler stated, "Pfalz scout is not popular with pilots owing to its lack of speed and its bad manoeuvrability; an improved type is expected."

Summary of Air Intelligence, General Staff of the AEF:
“April 1918 - Interrogation of pilot, Jasta 64: Pfalz D.III inferior to Albatros D.V, but one advantage, it climbs faster. It is equipped with 160 hp Mercedes, old model, but good with frequent defects in metal. 45 Hrs between overhauls,”…

Summary of Air Intelligence, General Staff of the AEF:
May 1918 - Albatros D.V much liked, although Pfalz D.III probably faster and has better climb, but not in favor because maneuvering qualities are not so good.
“Jagdstaffeln 64 and 65 have about 10 Albatros D.V and Pfalz D.III aircraft apiece. Pilots not satisfied with machines especially Pfalz which climbs slowly and loses speed at high altitudes. They regard speed superior to Albatros D.V.”

Air Chief Marshal Sir Donald Hardman flew Dolphins with 19 Squadron and wrote, "The Pfalz unlike the Albatros was not a popular machine with the Hun Pilot; it was prone to catch fire, had little glide, and was not so strong as its predecessor, and therefore, although it actually came on the front later than the Albatros, it disappeared before it. However it was rather more splitarse and had a slightly higher ceiling, 19 000ft or 20 000ft. It had one bay with "V"-shaped struts, extensions, a rather deep and narrow fish-shaped body with a square tail. It was more or less regarded as "cold meat" by the British pilot and known as the foolish Pfalz fish. The Hun was always rather afraid of them and consequently didn't make the best of them."

1/Lt. Donald S. Poler, an American who flew SE5a’s with No. 40 Squadron RAF, described a fight he had on June 27: “At a 1:30 patrol we engaged two Huns. One, our first Fokker D.VII, and a Pfalz with wings painted red and fuselage yellow. I had a wonderful dogfight with the last down to 7,000 feet, away over the lines. No one was hurt…I fought with that fellow from about 14,000 feet down to 6,000 feet. Evidently the S.E.5 and that Pfalz were pretty closely matched. I’d try a maneuver and he’d try a maneuver and I’d try another maneuver and I couldn’t get any tighter and he couldn’t get any tighter to me. I’d pull away and get in a few shots without results. When we got down to 6,000 feet (and this is always the case up on the British sectors) the wind had carried us several miles over German held territory. …When we got down that far I decided I had better call it quits, so I beat it. Well, he wouldn’t let me beat it….all the time he was following he was firing. I looked back at the fellow and could see his bullets following me all the way. They looked like fountains of smoke. …I finally got away.”

Mick Mannock and a well flown Pfalz on 21st May 1918. The story was told by Ltn. Van Ira:
"...the other Pfalz, a silver bird, and he had a fine set-to, while his patrol watched the master at work. It was a wonderful sight. First they waltzed around one another like a couple of turkey-cocks, Mick being tight on his adversary's tail. Then the Pfalz half rolled and fell a few hundred feet beneath him. Mick followed, firing as soon as he got into position. The Hun then looped - Mick looped too, coming out behind and above his opponent. The Pfalz then spun - Mick spun also, firing as he spun. This shooting appeared to me a waste of ammunition. The Hun eventually pulled out; Mick was fast on his tail - they were now down to 4,000 feet. The Pfalz now started twisting and turning which was a sure sign of 'wind-up'. After a sharp burst close up Mick administered the coup de grace, and the poor old fellow went down headlong and crashed."
"This was a remarkable exibition, a marvellous show. I felt sorry for the poor Pfalz pilot, for he put up a wonderful show of defensive fighting. Had he only kept spinning right down to the ground, I think he would have got away with it."

None of these quotes give the impression of an awesome dogfighting machine that allied inline fighters were afraid to, or were warned against turning with.
Note, the Great Mick Mannock who railed against dogfighting with the Dr.I was quite happy to dogfight with the Pfalz…. and won!
This is not the Pfalz we have in ROF….

Spoon

So based on these wonderful accounts, which consist of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and are delightfully free of hyperbole, would you also suggest changes to the Dr.I? As the one "firing at all of us simultaneously" is not the Dr. I we have in ROF...

Anecdotal evidence is really hard to use when making a sim plane.

Also, consider that maybe the pilots who WOULD have told about how the Pfalz turned inside of them might not have made it home...

The Pfalz is my favorite mount in RoF I have gotten more kills in it than any other type, I seem to recall in the Blue Max that it was much derided by the pilots so the anecdotal evidence must have been taken as historical fact there too.

"They regard speed superior to Albatros D.V.”
So the Pfalz was faster than the DVa

"Well, he wouldn’t let me beat it….all the time he was following he was firing. I looked back at the fellow and could see his bullets following me all the way."
I guess this means that the Pfalz is almost as fast as an SE5a.

"This was a remarkable exhibition, a marvelous show."
Against the likes of Mick Mannock no less. The Pfalz must have been one hell of a dogfighter.

"and was not so strong as its predecessor"
So the Pfalz was was not terribly rugged. In fact, less well put together than the DVa.

Funny, those impressions are the exact opposite of what I thought a Pfalz was.

Be careful with anecdotes.

One of those impressions must be pfalz...

I'll get my coat.

Pfalz wing had two spars, with torsion diaphrams at each rib within the box.
The British noted that 4184/17 responded better to it's controls than their examples of Albatros DV

The RoF Pfalz D.IIIa is a helicopter. I don't think anyone denies this. Hopefully it will be reviewed soon.

The D.Va is too good in the roll axis; compare it to the Albatros D.III.

Don't forget there were two versions of the Pfalz... The D.III and D.IIIa. Who can say which the Allied pilots were talking about?

You could never build a flight model based on anecdotes, but if you spend enough time and get together enough of them, they can get a historical overview of an aircraft and you can see how your flight model compares. In this case, if you spend the time to read all the anecdotes that I have spent a week collecting, you will notice a wide discrepancy between how pilots thought of the Pfalz at the time and how it flies in ROF.

I'm not asking for a review of the Pfalz's flight model based on anecdotes, just a review of its flight model.

Spoon

Trouble is the lack of data (again). Nearly all of it was destroyed in the war 20 years later.

Reading what you have posted and having access to other anecdotal information, what I note is the huge discrepancy between the people providing anecdotal evidence. Some say it maneuvers well and others say it does not. Some say it is faster than a DVa while others say it is slower. Some say it climbs better than a DVa while others say it does not. As noted earlier, there are two versions of the plane and two different engines to consider, so that adds to the confusion.

The overall impression that I get is of a plane that is slower than its pilots would care for but almost certainly not as slow as the worst reports ... maybe a few MPH slower than the Alb. A plane that does not climb terribly well but porbably isn't completely miserable either. It turns well enough for an inline but would certainly not be spoken of as maneuverable in the sense that contemporary rotaries were maneuverable. Maybe it has nastier stall characteristics than an Albatros but not really too bad. And almost all accounts (except for one posted in your OP) indicate that it can dive.

.. and I could be completely wrong .

It apparently hangs on its prop pretty well ( at least here) too! Maybe it's an engine thing!

the damned planes have put a BUNCH of holes in my bird from what appears to be a hover-and that's MY world!

Doesn't matter-best sim going by FAR!!!

I have seen allied types do the hang on the prop thing too. I am not sure how much they are even hanging on their prop as much as going vertical,popping of a burst, and drilling me between the eyes. In that scenario the problem is more sniper AI than FM.

I get the sense that there are many who only play one side or the other. In my experience the Entente AI prop hang like crazy, too; but the Pfalz D.IIIa just happens to be best for it.

That's the rub, isn't it?

Nice post (also compliments to totalspoon). I think the tricky thing is contextualising it:
What is the context of the quote (is the focus of the story the Pfalz? Or another element of the combat action)?
Who is saying it (a test pilot or technician, a combat pilot, or a man with his feet welded to the ground?)
What altitude is it taking place at?
What does maneuverability mean (roll rate, sustained turn, responsiveness to control inputs, high speed turn rates)?

Without considering these things the discussion becomes, what I've heard they term a 'yo mama' fight... (or is the formal term flighting in Scots?)

My problem remains not so much with the FM as much as the AI - first for making such a bad decision and second for consistantly nailing me with such a low odds shot. When I fly the Pfalz I feel anything but invincible, but it just never occurs to me that pointing my nose straight up in the air to get off a snap shot is a good idea.

I'm not saying not to review the Pfalz FM, however, I believe that more mileage can be had by reviewing the AI.

Pfalz impressions. It's stronger than a Camel, can turn as well as a Camel, is more docile than a Camel. In case you haven't noticed, I've got the hump.
If it was so good in RL it should have made Camel mince.
All this, yet the dumbkopf Hun didn't like it. Someone's wrong somewhere.

"more or less cumbersome"

"slow and not of much account"

"lack of speed and its bad manoeuvrability"

"inferior to Albatros D.V, but one advantage, it climbs faster"

"but not in favor because maneuvering qualities are not so good"

"It was more or less regarded as "cold meat" by the British pilot and known as the foolish Pfalz fish"

"Mick being tight on his adversary's tail. Then the Pfalz half rolled and fell a few hundred feet beneath him. Mick followed, firing as soon as he got into position. The Hun then looped - Mick looped too, coming out behind and above his opponent. The Pfalz then spun." (Says nothing about sustained turns in there, sounds like a classic energy fight)

These paint a fairly clear picture to me and not all of them are anecdotes, some of these sources are official assessments made by intelligence.

That's cherry picking your quotes. There are plenty of quotes that paint a much better picture. Not that of a brilliant performer but certainly of an adequate aircraft.

Only climbs better than a DVa? Who said that? Most of what I have is that it climbed worse than a DVa and was a bit slower. However, it certainly dove much better and was generally reported to be more responsive.

Official assessments made by intelligence? Based on what? A war weary captured example?

The Pfalz is one of the more difficult birds because it's performance was not homogeneous. Some examples performed better than others and age seemed to affect it more than other aircraft. It suffered badly from exposure. So do you have a new Pfalz or an old battle weary one? Is it a British pilot making the quote or a German pilot? What is the context?

Again - not arguing that a Pfalz should turn like a Camel, climb like a DRI, and run like an SE5a. It should be comparable to an Albatros DVa with some strong points and some weak ones. The day that some people prefer the Pfalz and others prefer the DVa and most like the DRI better and everybody wants the D.VII is the day that 777 will have it nailed. Not an easy task .

Not necessarily. The Dr1 had to be retired before the Pfalz D.IIIa on account of its insufficient speed, and the D.Va remained on the front lines until the armistice. In important respects the Pfalz D.IIIa and Albatros D.Va were better than the Dr.1, but they might not have appealed to hot shots who were chagrined to run away from a fight. The Dr.1 might have the most overblown reputation of all WW1 scouts.

The part about the D.VII I agree with.

My take on the DRI is quite different. Quoting the late Dan-San Abbot of theaerodrome, it had the second best victory/loss ratio of any German plane except the Fokker D.VII.

In many ways the DRI was comparable to a Camel, but they were used entirely differently. The Germans gave the DRI to their top squads with experienced pilots. These pilots could handle the DRI's inherent difficulties and make good use of its advantages. The British gave the Camel to many squadrons, with the result that many more squadrons had a good airplane but many more young pilots killed themselves trying to fly the thing. In truth I am not sure that the German decision to build so few was an intentional stroke of insight. More likely it was forced on them by initial teething problems that delayed introduction and then the advent of the Fokker D.VII that ushered in the quick exit of the DRI.

Compared to the Alb and Pfalz I think that most of the better pilots greatly preferred the DRI. While it was certainly slow it was not that much slower than the Pfalz and Alb and about the same speed as a Camel. It could also catch most recon types of the day - if just barely - and it's rate of climb made it a very good interceptor. Form a German PoV you had to give up a little bit of speed, but you got a tremendous boost in climb and maneuverability. A pretty good trade IMHO.

So, the scout that was only provided to the best units was second in K/D to a scout that was given to nearly every unit? That tells me something.

From what I understand the D.VII was known to be good at hanging off it's prop, in RoF it doesn't seem markedly different to any of the other scouts in this respect.

The D.VII was also, as far as I am aware, renowned to be comparatively easy to fly, what was the saying, it would make an average pilot look good and a good pilot look great, and yet handling wise it it strikes me as not overly different to aircraft it replaced such as the Pfalz and DVa.

Haha, I thought the same thing reading your post regarding cherry picking. There's a general trend in this evidence (Whether it's circumstantial or not) that provides an impression of the relative capabilities of the Pfalz against other types and the picture it paints isn't matched by our Pfalz in relativistic terms since ours could never be described as being "cumbersome", "of not much account" or having "bad maneuverability".

Also, how many hours at the front would it take for an aircraft to become war-weary exactly? Probably not very many, all aircraft had to be constantly adjusted and some were inadequate before they were even flown on operations due to a lack of standardisation in their construction so, once again, we have no real source of empirical data, only these relativistic impressions which you clearly understand the implications of well as I do judging by your last remark which I totally agree with.

I guess from all this you could deduce that it was a somewhat capable aircraft in the right hands but a mediocre one in inexperienced hands which, unfortunately, describes every combat aircraft ever built.

Yeah, that's like an old saying "it ain't the rifle, it's the cowboy shootin' it" and it's right on the money!

PatrickAWilson said,


EXACTLY!!!!

I remember a USN pilot writing that the sim that they used for training had just undergone its third, multi-million dollar upgrade to improve its realism and flight models and it still wasn't perfect. And that was for ONE aircraft!

777 has done a fantastic job and even if by some miracle, they could make every aircraft perform exactly how I want them too, others would find them incorrect from their perspective.

However it would be nice to have the Fokker D.VII outclass the Pfalz D.XII which in turn outclasses the Plafz D.III and Albatros D's.

Spoon

It should tell you that the D.VII was a great plane. It was very good at EVERYTHING while still being easy to fly. Speed, climb, dive, roll, turn - it could do it all. And it did it with almost no vices. Novice to intermediate pilots could fly to the edge of the envelope without fear. Top pilots had a Swiss army knife of tactical possibilities in combat at their disposal. To all appearances it was also relatively easy to manufacture. Given that the D.VII was so superior to anything available, why not replace everything?

JimmyBlonde: like most things Pfalz related there are only anecdotes without details. The fuselage could warp, with significant impact on performance. How common? Under what conditions? How quickly? As far as I am aware, unknown.

Most flight sims model the birds in good condition. Doing otherwise makes an already ridiculously difficult job (mimicking the flight characteristics of a 100 year old plane on a PC) unthinkable. Think of the anomalies that were a real part of life. Top wing failure on the DRI. The rapid degeneration of Clerget rotaries as compared to LeRhone and Bentley. The frequent failure of Hisso drive shafts. Early Fokker D.VII overheating.

It is good to remember that our D.XII is a considerably up-engined prototype - and it is still inferior to the Fokker D.VII in most respects.

There are a few aircraft that I'm suspicious of. Perhaps you are right and the D.IIIa should be a little less favorable compared to the Albatross. However, toning down the E.III would be a much higher priority for me (it is awfully easy to control).

Something else to consider . . . as the Pfalz would have been a bit of a "hand me down" plane as the war progressed, it is possible that the pilots flying it (and certainly the ones getting shot down in it) were some of the lesser ones. If one reads air combat accounts from the WWII Pacific Theater, you will see a similar phenomena, where the incredible manuverability of the Zero becomes less and less mentioned by its opponents. This in part is because of relative improvement in Allied fighters, of course, but the decline in skill in JNAF aviators also mean a decline in apparent relative perforamce of the A6M (i.e. pilots were no longer "max performing" it).

Hello,
all the accounts i read here are from the "commonwealth" point of view, is there no description of german pilots ? Will look for that, maybe there's someting in the Zuerl or Jentsch. Fieseler, who was an "ace" at the Saloniki front writes about his DVII (NOT even an "F") and what this plane was already capable of, the only problem were faster SPAD two-seaters (XIV?), as he wrote.

As well in RoF the Albatros and Pfalz cannot (!) "hang on their prop", what you see and mean is something different. Albatros and Pfalz can only be made "stand" in the air with a lot of speed, and for a very short time, but this is NOT hanging on the prop.
As soon as the nose points up (what you can do with every plane, enough speed and momentum provided, even with a Piper Cub) they will fall away in a second or two, and can only reach this position with speed and momentum.

Certainly, when you fire a burst in this position, you can get a lucky shot. However towards the end of the war there were encounters with 50+ planes, and anyone doing such a manoeuver would not live to tell the tale unless he flew a D.VIIF.

Here in RoF the normal Fokker DVII is utterly useless, and even the VIIF with the simulated BMW engine cannot hang on its prop in RoF, it is almost the same as with the Albatros and Pfalz. But "hanging on the prop" means that the plane indeed hangs on its prop, almost vertically, for 5 - 10 or more seconds ! I can understand the RoF team probably wanted some kind of balance, but the FM is "debatable" to say at least.

Remember there were so much more Entente planes towards the end of the war, and relatively few german planes with not enough fuel to fight the incoming planes anymore. But the remaining german planes and pilots still scored very high in september 1918, almost 10 Entente planes, for one german.

When we had those numbers, e.g. 100 Entente planes like RE8, Brisfit and all those french bombers that are never mentioned but did the major part in the war, and say 3 DVIIs, 1 Dr.I, 4 Alb. DVs and 2 Pfalzs modelled right we could maybe observe in MP what it was like.

First off, of course the planes don't actually "hang" on the prop as power to weight ratios aren't even close to making that happen-my discussion was due to the fact that when my "foes" do a pull-up and "appear" to be hanging on the prop, they are friggin' deadly shots. I think everyone knows that they are accomplishing this during the "zoom" before airspeed bleeds off and the nose falls through, but crikey, they are some DAMNED good snapshooters!!!!

Oh yeah, one other thing----ten to one? Where did you find those stats as I don't believe that for a minute. The Germans were being overwhelmed with an influx of trained pilots and much better equipment, I don't believe for a second that they where able to have those stats. Oh, and P.S.---USA guy who's great grandfather fought in the trenches of WW1 for Germany (I have his medals and other goodies-way cool!) so not being nationalist!

The Fokker D.VIIF should prop-hang in a climb. The Old Rhinebeck Fokker D.VII has proven this. It has an original 200 HP Mercedes engine, and built to original spec with an authentic airframe. Sadly this is somewhat off in ROF, though I've gotten pretty close with half-fuel or less in ROF.

Yes, the Pfalz and ALbatros only appear (!) to be hanging on their prop, but they are just at the end of their energy-curve, and dead shots.
The Fokker D.VII could not climb vertically like a helicopter, but it would not fall away to any side, but keep its nose up for quite some time climbing, and also in falling - vertically, even being manoeuverable in that position through the big prop and its propwash ! This is what the Allied control commission saw, and which is why the plane was banned, surrendered or destroyed. It really was that good.



This happened in the months august to october 1918, and you can read this in the Neumann "Die deutschen Luftstreitkraefte im Weltkriege" (should be even available online by now), in Walter Zuerl's "Pour le Mérite", in Kurt Jentsch's "Als Jagdflieger im Feuer" and in numerous publications recently made available to the public by the german Bundesarchiv, based on personal experience and official reports.

And while german pilot numbers certainly suffered towards the end of the war, so did Entente pilot numbers. There were masses of untrained fliers sent to the slaughter, if you look at the american pilots, and the RFC/RAF Camel pilots. But at least the german and Austrian/Hungarian flight training was as thorough at the end of the war, as it had been in the beginning. But nothing could make up for real fights and learning, so a lot of them died as well.

This is a problem with both the AI and human pilots. Prop-hanging is so common-place in RoF that people actually attempt it in the Fokker E.III, with hilarious results. Yet most of the aircraft in the sim can prop hang well enough to get in a deadly burst from 2-300m below. It belies the importance of actually maneuvering into a good firing position, ACM, situational awareness, and all that good stuff.

This is not "hanging on the prop", this is just a nose up without much manoeuverability and speed left, at the end of the energy-curve !

In real life real pilots in real planes did avoid such a situation like the plague:

1. it made them a sitting duck for loong seconds until they regained full control of the plane, at the same time falling some hundred feet and
2. at the same time risking a non-recoverable spin.

E.g. Ernst Udet never did a spin, he was indeed afraid of it - yes Udet with his 60 victories and surviving the war. The only time he ever went into a spin was with a Curtiss in the 1930ies, and he preferred to jump out with his parachute instead trying to get out of the spin. You would not risl
They were risking their lives in the real war, and such stunts leaving you without energy sure led to a short "career". With 50+ planes in a scrap there would always be one there who would shoot such a fool down ..

In RoF we do not fly in squadrons or a "Kette", as someone said "everyone his own Voss" lol.


The "problem" in RoF (not that it spoils a very good sim) is that the D.VIIF flies as the VII should, and regarding hanging on the prop the "F" is as bad as any other plane, in RoF. Then there is a too slow Albatros and some other minor things, but i am sure it will be sorted out sooner or later.

OK, with regard to the "prop hanging" thing-if the plane exceeds its critical angle, the airfoil will stall and the plane will fall away. What you guys are talking about is the fact that the DVII can maintain a higher than normal angle of attack to the relative wind before it STALLS!!!!!!!!!!!! It isn't going to "hang on the prop" as that requires a power to rate ratio that exceeds one to one and the only planes that can do that are modern jet fighters and modern aerobatic aircraft that are significantly OVERPOWERED for thier airframes...

No piston aircraft before the 1990's can "hang on the prop"-the power to weight ratio just ain't there!!!!

And I think Catfish has it spot on....Except for one thing-are there any "non German" sources for that info??? Haven't seen it so far.......

I'm not here to argue definitions with either of you.

Huh ? No, i take it it is just your opinon.



@Copterdrvr:

What i meant there seems to be only non-german reports listed above, not one german one - except the cloudy statement that "german pilots hated the Pfalz", which is not true (and an Entente pilot to see a well flown Pfalz would have probably not lived to tell about it).
German pilots were critical of the late Pfalz D.XII because of all those old-fashioned wires and its also old-fashioned two-sparred wing cell. The Pfalz D.IIIa was a bit better than the III, but it was not the promised quantum leap like the Fok. Dr.I and VIIF showed, in relation to the Halberstdt D.II or the Albatros series. It climbed a bit better than the Albatros and dived faster though, but no fireworks. Imho It just was not so much different or better that it replaced the other planes of the time, like the D.VIIF did.

Or something like that

In this discussion on the Pfalz, no one has really addressed, what is to me, the salient feature of the Pfalz which seems wrong. It can turn as well as the Camel. The only reference we have to it's turn capability is that Mick Mannock found it hard to stay on it's tail. The point that's overlooked is that he did so and in an SE5a. Anyone here want to show how it's done?
The Pfalz was an in line engine, the Camel owed it's reputation for manoeverabilty and vicious handling to it's rotary. The Camel has a known and documented reputation for that turn ability. So too the Dr1.

Where is the evidence to show the Pfalz was their equal in a turn?

I think that there would be almost universal agreement that the Pfalz was nowhere near equal to the Camel in a right hand turn (not sure about left). There are somethings to be careful of. To really say that the Pfalz turns as well as a Camel in the game, the following conditions have to be true:

1. The pilot making the statement is proficient in both aircraft.
2. Tests are performed with both aircraft in the same energy state - flying straight and level in the horizontal.

Get into this mode and determine two things:
1. How long does it take to turn360 degrees.
2. What is the radius of the turn.

Personally,I am lousy in a DRI and cannot get the most out of the plane. The Camel is similar. It's a quirky, nasty little beast. It is entirely possible for a well flown inline to get inside of a badly handled rotary.

A Pfalz with a superior energy state will be able to get inside of a Camel, not through pure horizontal turn but through a combination of horizontal and vertical.

It would be interesting to see what sort of results different sim flyers can come up with.

There's no way that the RoF Pfalz D.IIIa's turn-rate is equal to the Camel's, not with equal energy states.

I agree.
But in RoF the Camel is much too fast -

The amount of energy and emotion that goes into discussing flight model accuracy never ceases to amaze me. I guess that's why I love this community - it has be right down to the last nit or we're not satisfied!

I just hope folks remember that when it comes down to it, all models are wrong - some are just more useful than others.

Patrick, the points you make are valid. I am not proficient in both, but I can handle a Camel. In a horizontal turn I can hold either left or right turns to just on stall and very rarely indeed do I stall a Camel and can recover before a spin develops. In the frustrating incident in question I turned with a Pfalz and in horizontal flight it matched my turn,. In other words I could not get inside his arc no matter how balanced my control was. So therefore we were in the same energy state and the Pfalz was equal to the Camel. I admit I haven't spent time on statistical flying to know and quote the turn rate of each aircraft in each turn but I do know the variation in rudder input the Camel needs for full stability.
As an RL pilot with hundreds of hours in a biplane I am reasonably confident of my ability. Well looks like I must go back and spend time in both with a stop watch. Perhaps a skilled ROF SE5a pilot might try to emulate Mannock turning with a Pfalz DIIIa and report back.
Just a quick observation on Camel's left and right turn abilities both in RL and ROF. In RL the Camel was reported to have a lightning fast right hand turn. So fast that pilots often used it to turn left by turning through a full 270. Could be wrong but haven't noticed it in ROF.
All things being said, I am a realist. I love ROF and accept what it offers. It is a sim and does the best it can with incomplete information.

Einstein, I like your comment that we want things correct to the last nit Just nit picking.

Suppards, are you sure that what you observe is the result of turn rate and not turn radius? I wouldn't be surprised if the Pfalz D.IIIa had a smaller turn radius than the Camel.

As for the asymmetric qualities of the Camel, it's been brought up at the official forums before, and so far the developers seem to believe that the left/right turn difference was merely a big exaggeration.

ROFfan, you have presented me with a problem. I have a nasty feeling that maths is involved somewhere. My knowledge of physics is so poor that at school I once sank a large boat with a one ounce weight, It was demonstrating Archimedes Principle or something. All I remember about Archimedes was naked man rushing about having a Eureka moment. As the blasted Pfalz remained in the same position ahead of me throughout the turn I will take a blind leap and say rate of turn or turn radius was the same.
As to the matter of the turn differential in the Camel being discussed before, yes I am aware the issue has been raised.

It may be that either the 'turn' being reported was 'roll' in modern parlance, or alternatively the roll rate differential was such that a continued horizontal turn was easier than reversing the turn direction - possibly not 'faster' but safer and with less risk of 'slowness' or departure from flight.

Well, to use historic accounts, pilots say they could turn so quickly to the right with a Camel that they could be buffeted by their own slipstream. Truth or willful exaggeration? Usually there is a grain of truth in statements like that, and I do believe the Camel could turn quicker to the right owing to torque effects.


Is this true? I should spend more time there, but there are simply too many threads, and then you have to read dozens of pages, it is all too much.

I would find it hard to believe that in real life a Pfalz could make a right turn in anywhere near the radius or turn rate of a Camel. That rotary engine pulls hard. Again, left turns are a different story and I freely admit that I have no idea what the results would be there.

Let me clarify, I mean, in the simulation called RoF I wouldn't be surprised if the Pfalz D.IIIa had a smaller radius than the Camel.

In Mig-77's tests, the Pfalz D.IIIa turns a complete circle in ~11 seconds at 120kmh (sustained). The Camel completes a circle in ~9s at 130kmh (you can get slower but it takes a while to settle down that much!). So, it looks like I'm wrong about the smaller radius. My guess second guess would be that the Pfalz D.IIIa has a very good instantaneous turn, and it takes the Camel a long time to lose airspeed during a hard turn. Those two things together might give the temporary impression that the Pfalz D.IIIa can turn with the Camel.

Hitting your own slipstream is truth. In the Tiger Moth it was a source of pride on my part to cut my own slipstream in a tight turn. It indicated I had balanced elevator and rudder properly. It was not buffeting but a slight jerk on the controls. This is why I have raised the issue of the Pfalz turn. On more than one occasion I have been in a sustained turn which would have washed off any residual energy the Pfalz may have had and still the best I could do was to maintain distance and arc. On a few occasions I have been the one with the energy advantage yet still am unable to close.