Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#2887468 - 10/25/09 03:22 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
Yes, the data always seems interesting.

Here's an interesting comparison too:

Profile Publication no. 67, The Fokker D.VIII monoplane flying with an 110 hp Oberursel rotary engine (and using good castor oil no doubt):

Maximum speed at ground level 115 mph.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2887471 - 10/25/09 03:26 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Yes, I noticed it too (and mentioned in some post earlier) smile


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887476 - 10/25/09 03:29 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
Hey, I'll propose a compromise solution. Let's expect the Fokker Dr.I to fly at 115 mph at ground level in ROF, but once it's 100 feet off the ground no faster than 103 mph.

Thus observing all the available data you've quoted for the Fokker Dr.I.

#2887482 - 10/25/09 03:39 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Now, now. It should fly 115mph up to 2780m and then drop 97mph. After that speed would gradually drop down to 91mph at 3200m and then jump back up to 102,5mph at 4000m. At altitude of 4180m speed would again drop dramatically to 87mph. biggrin


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887484 - 10/25/09 03:42 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
Excellent, and finally a meeting of the minds.

No wonder its pilots thought the Fokker Triplane was such an exciting plane to fly! hahaha

#2887492 - 10/25/09 03:52 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Ming_EAF19]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Lieste Offline
Senior Member
Lieste  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Quote:
I've seen footage of (scale-model) RC prop planes having lost one wing but still being roughly controllable, flying on-edge

Can this behaviour scale up so that real planes can lose a wing and still be (roughly) controllable, not to fall out of the sky immediately?

I wonder if smaller planes with only one wing have (proportionally) less drag than real-size planes with only one wing, so that allows them the soft landing. While the proportionally more draggy full-size plane would drop like a stone perhaps in the Gedanken


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

#2887515 - 10/25/09 04:24 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Lieste]  
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 618
Gr.Viper Offline
Member
Gr.Viper  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 618
Russia
F-15 has a wide fuselage which also provides lift at high speeds. And RC models often have far better thrust-to-weight ratio than big planes.

#2887534 - 10/25/09 04:53 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Gr.Viper]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
Another source for the Fokker Dr.I bonfire, this one from The Fighting Triplanes, by Evan Hadingham.

Hopefully once the ROF Fokker Dr.I comes out, we won't start feeling all the other aircraft airspeeds need to be "ranked up" too.


#2887539 - 10/25/09 05:03 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Shows excatly same numbers as in Profile publicatios Nro 55 (except it doesnt mention that Dr.I 141/17 recorded speed was 118mph at unspecified altitude).

To get things even more interesting:

Flight magazine (february 12, 1920) states in its fokker comparison (page 175) to max Dr.I speed to 124mph and climb to 3300ft 1,75min, 6600ft 3,75min wink


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887546 - 10/25/09 05:22 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
The data in the chart above closely correlates the previously listed "Adlershof" test numbers, and on this chart specifically notes "carefully calculated at Rechlin in April 1918" for two airspeed entries, of which the 102.5 mph at 13,120 ft was not so noted.

Using these "carefully calculated" airspeeds, it would be highly unlikely that the Fokker Dr.I would have speeded up from 97 mph at 9,200 ft to 102.5 mph at 13,120 ft.

#2887554 - 10/25/09 05:32 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Pooch Offline
Hotshot
Pooch  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Orlando, FL
Blue Raven, I have a lot of time in Cessna's. Tooling around in a 172s, now. Learning the glass cockpit. Bit in intimidating for an old timer like me.
If your plane isn't conforming to those numbers, something is wrong because I've flown few Cessna products that didn't comply with the specs. Planes that have a lot of time on the airframes, and which have seen a lot of student pilot training, may not be "straight" anymore, if you know what I mean.


"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace."
Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia

#2887555 - 10/25/09 05:34 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Ofcourse they closely correlates as they all use same primary source. But problem here is that we (atleast I) dont know what plane was used in that adlershof test. Now if it was front line Dr.I with oberursel engine (which had worse quality than Le Rhones) then it is very likely that it was worn out already (Dr.I 141/17 was new).

So it is very likely that 115mph was top speed (as other similar planes could reach comparable speed) in new Dr.I and max speed dropped as engine degraded to that listed in adlershof test.


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887560 - 10/25/09 05:42 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
2005AD Offline
Member
2005AD  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
I think that since most other aircraft (apart from the D.Va, D.XII and of course the D.VII) are modeled on factory fresh, best performance figures that all other aircraft should be treated the same. There is no doubt that a used aircraft would begin to show degraded performance, but the same is true for ALL aircraft.

For example, the Hispano Suiza engine in the Spad XIII was very very temperamental, it was reported that 2 out of every 3 days the Spad XIII's were unusable due to engine problems. So if the Dr.1 (or any other aircraft) is modeled with it's unique technical problems then so should every other plane in the sim. The only logical way for Neoqb to play it is for all aircraft to be factory fresh every time you start your mission.

#2887576 - 10/25/09 06:01 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: 2005AD]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Agree, except not all planes use best stats. IE as showed in this thread N17 have better stats (107mph@2km) than used in game. So I think Neoqb go usually for most common stats (safest way to model planes).


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887579 - 10/25/09 06:13 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
2005AD Offline
Member
2005AD  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
Originally Posted By: MIG77
Agree, except not all planes use best stats. IE as showed in this thread N17 have better stats (107mph@2km) than used in game. So I think Neoqb go usually for most common stats (safest way to model planes).


This could go round and round smile

What if the most common stats are only common because they all repeat the same incorrect primary source? As is the case with the Fokker D.VII.

I don't envy the Neoqb FM programmers one bit smile

#2887581 - 10/25/09 06:15 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 17
Vati Offline
Junior Member
Vati  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 17
It is interesting to note that in this whose 'speed' is better contest, people forget that there were errors in measuring the speed. The best method to give minimal error was German (you can find this in NACA reports after ww1). Next very important thing to keep in mind is that build quality from prototype to serial production reduced aircraft performance. In some cases dramatically. Camel is one of the examples where there were continuous complaints that perf. specs of frontline fighter is nowhere near the prototype numbers.

On paper everything looks so white and black.. but when you start reading what was reported at the frontline, many things would contradict published perf. tables.

#2887584 - 10/25/09 06:17 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: 2005AD]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: 2005AD


This could go round and round smile


What, you dont like carousel? biggrin

Quote:
What if the most common stats are only common because they all repeat the same incorrect primary source? As is the case with the Fokker D.VII.

I don't envy the Neoqb FM programmers one bit smile


Then they will make same mistake that many others before them wink I think that is better option to constant accusation of bias to way or other (as best stat might be way too optimistic. Like 124mph for Dr.I biggrin )


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887589 - 10/25/09 06:24 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: Vati]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77 Offline
Member
MIG77  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
Originally Posted By: Vati
It is interesting to note that in this whose 'speed' is better contest, people forget that there were errors in measuring the speed. The best method to give minimal error was German (you can find this in NACA reports after ww1). Next very important thing to keep in mind is that build quality from prototype to serial production reduced aircraft performance. In some cases dramatically. Camel is one of the examples where there were continuous complaints that perf. specs of frontline fighter is nowhere near the prototype numbers.

On paper everything looks so white and black.. but when you start reading what was reported at the frontline, many things would contradict published perf. tables.


All true, but those perfomance report are way more accurate than pilots opinions (when some planes they didnt even have speed gauge). Atleast in those they tried to make scientific accurate measurements. BTW these Dr.I perfomance reports are from serial production planes.


You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
#2887670 - 10/25/09 08:50 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: MIG77]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired Offline
Senior Member
FlyRetired  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
When the flight data conflicts, as with the Fokker Dr.I, you can certainly consider pilot impressions, some of which we have included in this thread already.

The ROF statistics show the Albatros D.Va's top speed at 186 kph, and MIG77's quoted figures show the Fokker Dr.I to have been measured at top speeds of 185 kph at sea level.

According to German ace Joseph Jacobs: "it is slower than the Albatros D.V, and therefore, of little use to sneak up on the enemy at altitudes."

So having a simulated Fokker Dr.I one kph slower than the current Albatros D.Va in-game would in theory qualify it as slower. I'll leave it to be contemplated whether the Fokker Dr.I would be "of little use to sneak up on the enemy at altitudes" in comparison.

If we find that the sim's Fokker Dr.I proves to be faster in-game than the current ROF Albatros D.Va at higher altitudes, then Joseph Jacobs must have been mistaken.

#2887724 - 10/25/09 10:37 PM Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I [Re: FlyRetired]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
RocketDog Offline
Member
RocketDog  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
Bath, England
"What made the Fokker Dr I particularly well suited to equip the high-flying Jagedgeschwardern was its climbing ability which, despite a falling-off in power of its rotary engine at altitude, meant that it could at least climb quickly to heights of around 5,000 meters - something that other German fighters of the period, such as the Albatros D V and Pfalz D III, could not. Rate of climb was still seen as a more important attribute in a fighter aeroplane than mere speed, and although it was appreciated that the triplane was slow, height could be converted to speed by diving off a height advantage over an enemy; thus speed deficiency was not considered to be too much of a handicap."

Alex Imrie, The Fokker Triplane, Arms and Armour Press, 1992.

Cheers,

RD.


Beyond gliding distance
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0