More Camel torque please

[SCTusk]

After further flight testing I think there's a better picture emerging; earlier in the discussion we spoke about sustainability, with reference to immediate rotation vs translation. I couldn't see any reason why the gyro effect would improve one and not the other, so the proposed turn was referred to as 'sustainable', but that may have confused the issue somewhat. It certainly appears that the rotation into the turn and the turn itself are more rapid, but it looks like there's an energy penalty. It may be that the manoeuvre was either used sparingly (i.e. direction reversal) or if sustained perhaps only while diving. Horizontal reversals in the Dr1 seem to take about 3 seconds, holding the turn for 360 degrees is actually quite tricky and bleeds alot of E. There is definitely an impressive and rapid right yaw response to the pitch up, but I think the term 'sustainable' does not apply in the sense that the turn can be sustained for more than a few seconds (unless diving).

It seems likely that WW1 combat was generally less a matter of circling and more a hit and run affair, there must have been fights where they chased tails for awhile but it seems a dangerous tactic in a crowded sky. This might be the reason a non-sustainable rapid turn was so valued, as the combatants might never have attempted to sustain it even if it were possible. So it seems quite likely the Dr1 should out turn the Camel in a sustained co-ordinated turn, whereas (and this has yet to be proved) the Camel earned a reputation of being able to out turn any other aircraft based entirely on this non-sustainable rapid reversal under gyroscopic effect.

With my stick setup the Camel gives a little of this but prefers to stall the inside wing than yaw to the right. Any thoughts, or different results? 



 

[Ghosth]

Tusk, truly I am sorry for your pain sir. But us Dr1 pilots were just enjoying the barbecue to much to want to step in and spoil it. Besides, some did make comments, to whit Baumer, etc. To which you initially were not very open an excepting of.

So since you were on a crusade, we more or less thought we'd sit back and see how far you got.
Actually you did fairly well on the whole. <S>

Besides, the physics discussions were fascinating. Also most of us Dr1 knuckle dragger types can see when we are outclassed in a fight. So we let you guys play with the big words and the equations. I mean obviously this was one of those situations where it would be entirely too easy to say something which seemed simple. But which would leave everyone else pointing fingers and snickering.  Much wiser to sit back, nod your head at the appropriate time, nudge your neighbor "did you get that?" and every now and then let out an long "oooaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh hh" so that is how it works."

Truly I feel your pain, nasty stuff that righteous indignation, it can get you into all kinds of trouble.

Pull up a chair, grab a beer, I'm not sure its done yet. They'll be serving brisket or roasted flaming newb in geek sauce before the evening is over.

[SCTusk]

lol Ghosth, thanks for the sympathy but really I have survived the roasting more or less unscathed 

The debate encouraged me to think through the science of the famous turn, and understand better the true nature of it. Even if my original request is not fulfilled, I'm happy to have shaken the theory out and got to the heart of the matter in the face of some extraordinary (and intelligent) opposition. The debate will no doubt continue as to whether the Camel could in fact out-turn the Dr1 but I am satisfied, having found nothing in the detail that contradicts the legend, in fact more support for it.

As for my oversight of the DR1s' fast turn in the sim, with an average 270ms ping and occassional packet loss I see some weird stuff, and hadn't given much thought to the sight of DR1's sometimes doing rapid turns (in fact I've seen F2b's and DVII's doing it, almost certainly due to my connection), and I generally do not fly the thing. There is no evidence that I have seen to suggest the Dr1 could actually perform the manoeuvre, so I had no real reason to try it.

In your first post in this thread you said "Your just not seeing the big super advantage that you thought you'd see." That was entirely correct. There's a huge amount of supporting evidence but I was made quickly aware that the rules of the discussion allowed only hard data and logic. As everyone suspected, there is very little if any hard data on the manoeuvre. And so with HiTech to keep me on the straight and narrow, we thrashed out the logic and now I can ask for the same thing I asked for in my OP:

"just a bit more of that legendary torque induced right turn capability"

Of course, I always appreciate the encouragement of those like yourself <S>

[hitech]

lol Ghosth, thanks for the sympathy but really I have survived the roasting more or less unscathed 

The debate encouraged me to think through the science of the famous turn, and understand better the true nature of it. Even if my original request is not fulfilled, I'm happy to have shaken the theory out and got to the heart of the matter in the face of some extraordinary (and intelligent) opposition. The debate will no doubt continue as to whether the Camel could in fact out-turn the Dr1 but I am satisfied, having found nothing in the detail that contradicts the legend, in fact more support for it.

As for my oversight of the DR1s' fast turn in the sim, with an average 270ms ping and occassional packet loss I see some weird stuff, and hadn't given much thought to the sight of DR1's sometimes doing rapid turns (in fact I've seen F2b's and DVII's doing it, almost certainly due to my connection), and I generally do not fly the thing. There is no evidence that I have seen to suggest the Dr1 could actually perform the manoeuvre, so I had no real reason to try it.

In your first post in this thread you said "Your just not seeing the big super advantage that you thought you'd see." That was entirely correct. There's a huge amount of supporting evidence but I was made quickly aware that the rules of the discussion allowed only hard data and logic. As everyone suspected, there is very little if any hard data on the manoeuvre. And so with HiTech to keep me on the straight and narrow, we thrashed out the logic and now I can ask for the same thing I asked for in my OP:

"just a bit more of that legendary torque induced right turn capability"

Of course, I always appreciate the encouragement of those like yourself <S>

Unlike so many on this bbs, you did a rare case of following the rule of holes, and acctully filled it back up.

<salute>

P.S. glad you think the physics of gyros are hashed out,I still have 1 problem with energy and force conservation in my head in the analysis, If I figure it out I let you know, but it doesn't effect our modeling which would automatically have the correct result.

HiTech

[FLS]

Derned if I could find any physics discussions to explain the rotary engines 270dgr right turn in the F1 other than the aircraft was designed to rapidly stall and spin on purpose to the right. All references point out the extreme departure from the previous rotary engined Triplane and Pup's solid stability to a purpose driven design that was unstable. Why didn't the Pup, Triplane, or even Dr1 have the magical gyroscopic effect in some degree? If you look at the wing area for the Triplane and F1 they are equal with similar engine horse power.

F1 - 231 ft\sq....130hp rotary
Tri - 231 ft\sq....130hp rotary
Pup - 254 ft\sq....80hp rotary
Dr1 - 201 ft\sq...100hp rotary

Makes me consider that skilled pilots learned to take advantage of making it spin out of control to the right in a nose down attitude. You have modeled how quickly the F1 stalls based on the reading I've done around the internet. I have yet to find any pilot comments from the era specific to "x,y,z here is how you use the F1's purpose designed instabilities" to make impossible looking turns to the right so as to turn inside of the Hun. Is it possible the genius of the Camel is not the gyroscopic effect from the engine but the specific design instabilities to make use of what was known about torqe at the time?

Bustr when you compare the F1 and Dr1 keep in mind that the aspect ratio of the wings is different. Even with the same wingloading and power the Dr1 should have less induced drag which would give it a better sustained turn than the F1. The F1 should have a higher max AOA and a slower stall speed.

The "right turn to go left" and turn better is interesting because even if you ignore gyro effects you can gain angles with a lag displacement roll, which is simply the "turn right to go left" maneuver popularized by Boyd.

[bustr]

From the internet the few stories you find about the Snipe's combat success come down to it's climb and manuverability. But, not a gyroscopic effect by its 230hp rotary engine.

Snipe - 230hp rotary....274ft/sq area
Camel - 130hp rotary...231ft/sq area

The Snipe was designed as the predisessor to the Camel and purpose designed to be stable while taking advantage of a more powerful rotary engine via rate of climb and manuverability at altitiude. The Camel was purpose designed to be unstable to give pilots a rapid erratic manuver to the right hand that the german planes were too stable to easily duplicate. Why design an airplane with all the weight in the nose, is tail heavy, and stalls by looking at it wrong after you have designed two successfull highly manuverable predicessors the Triplane and the Pup?

The F1 in the game will stall rapidly and flys with a tail heavy attitiude per real world flight descriptions. You can pull it nose up and rapidly stall it and the engine\prop torqe will help pull you down to the right sort of. In game it has a bad tendancy to just float tail down and crash unless you kick right rudder before loosing control authority. In level flight you can rapidly snap it down to the right and in the process while nose down your canopy will rotate 270dgr clockwise. Then as you pull up completing a 270dgr right hand turn to the left.

Because we tend to furball and mow the grass in the WWI arena at the same time rather than meet at historic altitiudes. I suspect we are not able to get the most from our F1 because many spend their time plowing furrows with it due to its purpose designed instabilities.

[bustr]

For those who are interested, this thread at The Aerodrome about the Camel seems legitament.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/2000/9166-sopwith-camel-facts.html

[Charge]

Anybody already posted this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7Z4UurPSk

Interesting part is in 1:30 when the scientist tries to pull the axle down only to get a momentum shift of 90 degrees and the centrifugal rotator resists the force and starts to turn right instead.

Of course it cannot be that pronounced in an aircraft but it still gives an illustrative example.

-C+

[Yeager]

you did a rare case of following the rule of holes, and acctully filled it back up.
<salute>

Does the rule of holes apply to the above quote?

[bustr]

After all the internet research about the F1 and experience with it in the WWI Arena, I understand why that arena has devolved into a Dr1 Mosh Pit with the small number of dedicated players. I hope HiTech has plans to release another round of four aircraft soon to liven things up.

By the way, after reading more about Precession, wouldn't there be an unstable configuration of CG, wing area and rudder control surface area that would allow the rotary engine's gyroscopic precession to augment the purpose designed instability? If you pick up a spinning 10kg gyroscope by one end, precession will make it appear to be a 5kg weight as long as you follow the direction the gyroscope wants to travel. Did the rotary engine in the F1 produce enough precession effect to matter in its manuvering?

[Yeager]

I have made an effort to try and master the Dr1, or at least fly it more.  It still behaves oddly for me.  I'm not a test pilot and I genuinely don't know the science of flight but I do have a good number of hours in damned near every type in "this" game and I know how these FMs tend to "behave and feel".  There are times where I genuinely get the feeling that I am not flying the Dr1, but floating it at odd angles often in contrast with gravity.  I cant really officially complain about it because for all I know that's the way the Dr1 actually performed.  Still, it does not bode well for my own personal plausible believability that I am participating in a air combat simulator.  I tend to look at Dr1s with a measurable amount of contempt.
Something feels wrong about them with me I have nothing to base it on.  It is frustrating, but I temper it with a real love for the game and I will continue to persevere in the face of adversity 

[FLS]

Yeager the Dr1 is less stable than the Camel so the Gyro effect is more noticeable.

[Yeager]

Understood.  I enjoy the F1 quite a bit.  Perhaps I should master that one before putting alot of time into the Dr1.

[Pongo]