Salute

Wondering which versions of various aircraft we will see?

Albatros DIII: 160, or 175 hp Mercedes version? Hopefully both, would require no change in the graphics model, it was just a compression increase in the Mercedes DIII engine which gave the upgraded horsepower.

SE-5a: Wolsley Viper or a Hispano Suiza version? Graphics model looks like Hispano, which could be either a 200 or 220 hp version. The Hispanos were produced in 1917, the Wolsley replaced it in 1918. According to test, the Hispano had a slightly better climb than the Wolsley, but it was slower, plus reliability was not as good. The 220 hp was used by a number of Squadrons, most notably No. 56. Graphics model would be different for Hispano and Wolsley Viper.

Sopwith Camel: Seems like we will get the F1 version, wondering if the designers will include both the 130 hp Clerget, and the 145 hp Clerget which equipped this aircraft. Both could use the same graphics model, as the engine was the same externally with increased compression on the 145hp version.

Spad XIII: 200, 220 or 235 hp Hispano Suiza versions? All of these would have the same graphics model as far as I know.

Fokker DVII: Some of the models shown seem to be Mercedes engined versions, this was 75% of the DVII's made, but wondering whether the less produced BMW engined version will also be made? The BMW had much better performance.

Thanks for your patience

Buzzsaw

planned to have D.IIIa (175)



200hp Wolseley Viper



130hp Clerget 9B



220hp Hispano 8Bc/Be



Mercedes D.IIIa



No problems:)

PS: all of the engines/AC versions are made for maximum unification (planned) for the release, cause of time aspect again. It easy to say - "just change em their parameters", but it can take time, which we have scheduled/planned for other things.
But if we will have any time gaps - we will try to make as many as possible variants, since its really didnt take too much of 3D models modification.

Here's an online link to a good article by historian Dan-San Abbott on the introduction and wartime service of the Fokker D.VII:

(link to aticle on the Fokker D.VII In Service here)

The Fokker D.VII did not earn its reputation as "WWI's best fighter aircraft" until it was fitted with the over-compressed Mercedes and BMW engines late in the war, and it was these versions that caused it to be listed specifically in the armistice terms for seizure after the war. As noted historian the late Peter M. Grosz has indicated, the Fokker D.VII mostly gained it's renown as a result the 'high altitude' engines it eventually mounted (and its inherently good handling ease):

The Albatros D.V was better than any other German fighter when it was placed in production. If a better fighter had been designed by Pfalz, Roland, Fokker, LVG, etc., then it would have been ordered and built in quantity. Although politics may have played some part in the matter (but far less than often implied), the choice of fighters, bombers, and two-seaters was a very sophisticated process, based on many hours of careful testing. If the Albatros D.Va had any shortcomings, it was due to the fact that it remained at the Front too long and was then surpassed by newer and superior British aircraft. Perhaps the Fokker D.VII with its 180-hp Mercedes was not that much better than the Albatros D.Va. The Fokker D.VII did not win its handsome reputation until the advent of the BMW. IIIa 'high altitude' engine.

Well, D.VII was absolutely different AC from Albatros, mostly cause of its thick airfoil, which gived to it good low speed handlings and easy controls, so imho its not only the task of engine, but the whole concept.

PS: Check out Scott Eberhardt`s theoretical article - he gives to D.VII almost the same corner speed as for Camel.
So we have a chance to check it not only in theory

Um ... schwing?

I agree VikS, and did note in my post above the "inherently good handling ease" with which the Fokker D.VII could be piloted, in large part due to its aerodynamically-balanced ailerons and well-harmonized controls in all axis, along with a benign stalling nature, as you mentioned, primiarily due to it's round-nosed, high-lift airfoil.


Well, hard to tell what engine horsepower Eberhardt's Fokker D.VII used in his comparison.

In Scott Campbell's theoretical article - Airfoils & The Turning Ability of WWI Fighters, he gets much more specific with the German engines installed in each aircraft, even to the point of breaking down the Mercedes engines installed in the Albatros D.V/Va between the D.IIIa of 180 hp, and the upgraded D.IIIa field-retrofitted with the higher compression domed pistons giving effectively 200 hp, which had an output like the factory-production Mercedes D.IIIau, which were mounted on some of the Fokker D.VII models (as compared to the later BMW D.IIIa nominally rated at 185 hp, but capable of nearly 240 hp at higher rpms). Btw, German stationary engines were standard-tested at 1400 rpm whether they were capable of turning at faster speeds and/or making greater horse power. As Campbell mentions in his report:

Thus we see why every German aviator wanted the BMW Fokker D.VII. This engine was indeed truly impressive and we can see why there was a substantial difference in the climb rates of the Mercedes D.VII and the BMW D.VII. This will also produce a difference in their turning ability. As you can see from the graphs, aircraft with the same airframe that are given an improved engine have smaller turn radii and better turn rates. That is because, as velocity increases, the lift increases to the second power, which allows the aircraft to steepen its bank angle and thus turn tighter.

Too often the Albatros D.V/D.Va (and the Pfalz D.III/IIIa also) are not credited with the contemporary engines fitted (or retrofitted) for the day, which would give these aircraft the turn of speed so often mentioned in combat reports, and made them nearly as fast as the identically-engined but newer Fokker D.VII fighters.

Salute

The Fokker DVII had two main advantages over the Albatros DVa.

1) As mentioned, it's aerofoil gave it better low speed handling, and the ability to maintain a high angle of attack without a stall. It was an easier aircraft to fly.

2) The wing was considerably more sturdy than the DVa wing, being internally cantilevered, and not requiring wire bracing. For this reason, the DVII could be dived up to speeds at which the DVa's wing would begin to flutter and disintegrate. My readings indicate that approx. 180 mph was the maximum speed that the DVa could be dived to. Whereas other more heavily braced aircraft could be taken up over 200 mph. The SE5a was apparently good to 250 mph, and the Spad XIII apparently could be dived to 280 mph.

Speed of the DVa with the 185 hp engine in tests was given as 117 mph, the same engine in the DVa gave 119 mph, so the two aircraft were quite similar in top speeds. Climbrates were also given as very similar with a slight advantage to the DVII. There is however, some question about the speeds of the DVa, many Allied pilots thought the DVa was capable of faster speeds, nearer to 120-125mph, although none were close in speed to the faster Allied aircraft such as the SE5a or Spad XIII.

I would question the idea that the DVII with a Mercedes might match the turn radius of a Camel. The wing loading advantage of the Camel, and power to weight ratio would argue otherwise. Perhaps in a descending turn it might be able to, where power loading would not be as important. There is also the issue of the rotary torque affecting turnrate. The Camel's rotary engine torque pre-disposes it to a very quick roll and turn to the right, the torque naturally works to roll the aircraft right, and nose down into a turn. Whereas the a turn to the left had to be fought against the torque, which brings the nose up and to the right. Perhaps the DVII might have turn very close to the Camel to the left, but to the right, it seems unlikely.

The whole question of the horsepower of various WWI aircraft engines is open to some debate. Many manufacturers rated their engines under what they actually produced. Most rotaries were in fact putting out more horsepower than they were rated at.

The advantage of inline engines seems to be more considerable at higher altitudes. The rotary engined Dr1's and Camels excelled at altitudes under 3000 meters but once over that altitude, their performance rapidly tailed off. The only exceptions seemed to be the 230 hp Bentley rotary Sopwith Snipe, which had excellent high alt performance,or the Siemens Schuckert DIII and DIV. Higher compression engines generally did better at higher altitudes.

Salute

One of the combat issues which is sometimes overlooked in the quest to determine which aircraft had the better turn radius is the effectiveness of ailerons.

Almost all WWI aircraft had fabric ailerons, activated by thin wires, which stretched easily. Also, the pilots had to exert a lot of force to activate them.

Rollrates were overall much less than WWII aircraft, especially at higher speeds. The very early aircraft, such as the BE-2c and Fokker E-III which used wing warping to substitute for ailerons had abysmal rollrates. Even for those with ailerons, response was poor. The Dr1, often pointed to as an extremely tight turning aircraft, had very poor aileron response, quite the opposite of its elevator which was very sensitive.

Towards the end of the war, innovations to improve aileron response, such as horn balanced ailerons, which reduced the force required by the pilot to activate them. It didn't improve the overall rollrate, but reduced the force required, especially at higher speeds. Other aircraft had ailerons placed on all wings to improve response.

I have read a number of tests of the DVII, in which the comment was made that the controls were very well harmonized, so that the elevator and ailerons all worked well together as a whole.

Viks, it seams that only a Camel would have an earlier (weaker) type of engine....why?

Hi,

My first post here:) Hello to everyone.
I think that one thing is the overall plane balance, very importand in MMP environment. Thats why there will be D.VII with Mercedes instead of BMW D.IIIa. Same with Camel. You could put 150HP or 200HP Bentley which would make this plane superior. BTW: Clerget Camel is not so bad, too With her top speed about 120 mph and nice turning she will be very dangerous.
Buzzsaw,
good point on roll rate. I'd also include cockpit visibility and again, airfoil. Maybe the camel will outturn D.VII, but for sure the D.VII is overally easier to fly and less capable to spin due to the thick airfoil.

Cheers!

Salute

By the way, wondering if we are getting a flyable Spad VII?

And which engine? Very early 150 hp Hispano Suiza, or the later 180 hp version?

Many people do not realize that the Spad XIII had so many problems with its geared Hispano Suiza engine, that the Spad VII remained in service until early 1918, and was more numerous in use throughout 1917. Also the Spad VII with 180 hp engine had very similar performance to the Spad XIII, but of course, without the two guns.

Will we be getting a Spad VII with the additional Lewis gun on the top wing, as equipped RAF Squadrons?

Dont forget Bleriot-built one for RFC with this funny windscreen and the Mann-Engerton versions.
Actually, you can double the initial planeset only by building different versions of the same plane. Like 3-4 S.VII's, 2 D.VII's, 3x Alb D.III, etc.,etc. This will not be so difficult for the 3d modeller, because most of the 3d changes there are very small. But its more work for the FM guy.

Regards!

Welcome to the forum discussions Lukasz, and good points being made by all here!

One of the advantages of GT's scheme of planning patches and add-ons, will be the ability to upgrade existing aircraft with different power plants, and even different armament configurations.

Still, as we've been discussing here, sometimes it took only a matter of months before an introduced aircraft was flying with an upgraded or completely different engine, and these changes could prove to have significant performance advantages. Since we're talking about the Camel also, let me quote the following from the book The Camel File:

The following month the Aeroplane Supply Depots in France were ordered to replace the Clerget 9B with the new long-stroke 140-hp Clerget 9Bf as quickly as possible. By May, those squadrons that retained the Clerget-engined version of the Camel had them all replaced with new or re-engined aircraft fitted with the 9Bf. Official records suggest that some examples of the 9Bf received in France were rated at up to 160-hp.

One reason that embracing the add-on program was so important for the life of this sim, is the acknowledgment that to get this historical period fully fleshed-out will just take more time than most publishers would initially allow for a combat flight sim's development. Initially there may be some historically mismatched confrontations, apparently like the 130 hp Clerget-powered Camels vs. the Fokker D.VII in May 1918 and after, but if the sim sells well, then GT will be with us for a long time to come, and able to add more content and code in the years that follow (and that's very good for the long haul).

well, its cause ive said in upper post - for maximum unification to reduce an development time (Sop Triplane have the same engine as Camel).



180hp version



no

well, than put the Spad XIII and SE5a agaisnt this Fokker D.VII in the 1918 mission............

and fight with the 130 HP Camel the Albatrosses in 1917


btw, i would be interested in the kind of Nieuports that are planed for the release
Version number, engine, Lewis or Vickers gun (or both ).
these little things are my WW1 favorites

Frankyboy,

I don't think GT is going to restrict which planes you'll be able to fly online, besides, some people will want to fly the Camel against the Fokker D.VII despite its 130 hp engine (or even the Nieuport 17/23 vs. the D.VII).

Well maybe not the Nieuport 17.

as now in IL2 , it all depends on the missiondesigner......................

look the ADW server of the GT

i still hope GT is concentrating to have a lot of planes for some special battle times of the WW1.......... like the Maddox team is looking for its SoW:BoB.
sure, to have ALL variants for every time period would be nice - but doubtfull

and not to forgett, some twoseaters are also needed , at least for a nice, missionbased, online play . not "only" single seater scouts.
i realy think Viks and his friends have a lot of experience in that - and are knowing exactly what they want - just out of my experience with these guys online the last 5 years

I think the dev's have already said that timewise flyable 2 seaters wont make the initial release.

We fans here and elsewhere of WWI simming and online multiplayer have been counting on it!

The last listed List (w/o flyable aircraft types denoted)

FRANCE

Nieuport 17/17bis/23
Nieuport 28
SPAD VII
SPAD XIII
Breguet 14
Salmson 2 A2

GERMANY

Albatros D.III
Albatros D.V/Va
Fokker Dr.I
Fokker D.VII
Pfalz D.III/IIIa
Pfalz D.XII
Roland D.VI
Halberstadt Cl.II
Hannover Cl.III
DFW C.V
Gotha G.V and/or AEG G.IV
Rumpler C.IV

GREAT BRITAIN

Sopwith Pup
Sopwith Triplane
Sopwith Camel
Sopwith Dolphin
Sopwith Snipe
RAF S.E. 5/5a
Bristol F.2b
RAF F.E.2b
RAF R.E.8
Airco D.H.4
Airco D.H.9
Handley Page 0/400

WOW , but most propably not all as flyable ones ?!