Stopped by WWI arena

[Yeager]

try the game with engine governor off.  Makes for a more realistic experience.

[Kuhn]

I don't use no stinking governor!!     I gotta get in there more often. Yall is having to much fun.

[Yellow39]

Hi Gents.. let me add my two cents  to the debate .. good post this one !!  At this point it is just out of curiosity and the desire to learn more about the topic and nothing else.
I went  deeper and straight to the books trying to figure what aircraft was better in real life. Also couple of  websites which I would gladly suggest if asked. This is what I found :
J.M. Bruce. in British Aeroplanes 1914-18 says ...'The Camel 'was an extreme dog-fighter that could out maneuver any contemporary airplane with the possible exception of the Fokker Dr.I Triplane."
Worldwar1(dot)com second paragraph reads.. The Camel would become the premier Allied fighter aircraft of the war. Its optimal fighting altitude was at about 12,000 ft. and its maneuverability made it competitive with the Fokker Dr.I.
E.F. Cheesman. Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 war says 'The Camel' could match his counterpart the Fokker Dr1 at altitudes of 10 000 feet or more.
Arch Whitehouse in his 1964 piece" Years of the Sky Kings" explains about the Camel .. With its center of gravity very far forward (the engine, fuel tank, guns, and pilot were all in the front third of the plane), the aircraft was tricky to fly, but very maneuverable for a skilled pilot. While 413 Camel pilots were shot down in combat, 385 were lost in non-combat related situations, many due to the Camel's difficult handling.
I understand few hours research doesnt give any definitive answer and of course other authors may contradict my findings but so far I tend to think  the two planes were evenly matched with advantage to the camel at higher altitudes. The Dr1 holding his ground on maneuverability and handling . With the arena we have at this time rarely we see a fight over 4k alt, and  there are no fights developing over 10k at all , at least I havent seen one , the  Dr1 being more maneuverable on the deck at low speeds is accurate.

Ehre

[Yeager]

Getting from 4000 down to 1000 feet alt is no small chore in WW1.  It takes patience and time.  Its like walking on egg shells in a Camel.  I cant imagine getting up to 10-12k.  Besides the amount of time it would take.... all I can imagine is people egressing from anyone they see having any sort alt advantage.

[Wmaker]

As I've said before...

Considering that Camel and Dr.I have wingloading very close to each other and looking at their airfoils, it really is no wonder that Dr.I can fly a horizontal 360 degree banked turn slower and therefore have a smaller turn radius than Camel.

Dr.I: 6.46lbs/sqft
Camel: 6.30lbs/sqft

A pic depicting the Göttingen 298 used in the Dr.I. Camel's airfoild is very close to the RAF 14:


The airfoil used in the Camel, third from the top:

[Kuhn]

"the aircraft was tricky to fly, but very maneuverable for a skilled pilot"

I've heard that somewhere before.

[SCTusk]

I really don't like the idea of stepping on toes with regards to this issue (as I apparently did some time ago) but in the interests of clarity I'll have a shot at some warm and fuzzy input  

Wmaker is correct regarding the airfoil aspect of the comparison insofar as it applies to turning ability under normal flight conditions.

Ehre has dug up a reference to the Camels' optimum fighting altitude as 12,000 feet. Certainly it was known to be less than optimum above that altitude, and with the arrival of the SE5a the Camel was mainly relegated to low level work (ground attack etc) which seems to indicate that it didn't suffer much from flying in the dense air down low, a fact which Wmakers' airfoil info supports. I think we can safely presume that this was a design which performed best at speed and at lower altitudes.

Some time ago I had a very interesting discussion with HiTech regarding the famous 'gyroscopic effect' as it applied to the Camel. There was some difference of opinion as to what in the literature qualified as hard data or evidence, and what should be disregarded. There was also (initially) some confusion as to what benefit this effect might have on turn performance. Eventually we arrived at a consensus (as far as I understood it) and it seems appropriate that I offer an explanation of the effect here for those unfamiliar with it.

The correct name for the effect is 'gyroscopic precession' and it occurs when a spinning mass experiences a torque 'off axis', i.e. in any direction other than along or around the axis of rotation. It is not related to torque effects on the aircraft around the axis of rotation. In a rotary engine aircraft such as the Camel, the mass of the spinning engine (and prop) provides a powerful gyroscopic reaction to changes in pitch and yaw. The simple way to think about it is that pitch induces yaw, and vice versa. You can notice it on take off when the tail comes up, or when flying straight and level by pitching or yawing and watching for the effect. It is strictly directional, so that the rotary engines (always spinning clockwise when viewed from the cockpit) always yaw right on pitch up, left on pitch down; pitch up on yaw left, and pitch down on yaw right.

There is enough in the literature to suggest that Sopwith (following his experience with the Pup) deliberately designed the Camel to make full use of this effect. Most of the mass was concentrated in the first seven feet of the fuselage. The wings were well forward. In effect the centre of mass, centre of lift and centre of gyroscopic rotation were very close together. This allowed the aircraft to be turned gyroscopically (i.e. outside the flight envelope) in a right hand turn by simply banking right and pitching up. In fact the effect was so powerful that full opposite rudder was needed to prevent the aircraft entering a spin. Pilots reported a strong rush of air from the left side of the cockpit during the manoeuvre, and anecdotal evidence indicates that many high scoring Camel pilots believed the Camel was able to out turn any aircraft in a right hand turn.

It took us awhile to thrash all this out (it was initially difficult to sell a manoeuvre which takes place outside the flight envelope) but the breakthrough came when it was found the AH Dr1 can actually do the gyro turn. It's difficult to hold it for any length of time but it certainly can be performed. The AH Camel however merely drops the right wing.

Dr1 drivers seem to like the idea that the triplane should be able to do it, and are unmoved that the Camel can't. My take on it is that nowhere in the literature is the Dr1 mentioned in relation to the gyro turn. The literature is full of reference to the Camel having this ability. It was designed specifically around it. The Dr1 was not (smaller engine mass, less power, mass distribution less than optimal for the effect) and the German attempt at fielding a dominant turn fighter was over. They stopped manufacture after only a few hundred, presumably when they realised that the Camel was superior. No doubt that the Dr1 could turn a little gyroscopically, but here I suspect that the AH model is correct... a brief snatch to the right. Whereas the Camel should be capable of a tidy reversal, at the very least, and more probably a full turn or more before stalling (from cruising speed).

Say what.. ? Who's coming? Oh crap  





 

 

    

[Mano]

Amen!

Well said Tusk!

[meandog]

Nice Tusk....and all this time I thought you was making that word up (gyroscopic)...Very interesting facts you, Wmaker and Ehre have stated..Thanks

[Yellow39]

The Dr1 production ceased not because the germans realized the Camel was superior but because they had a superior model themselves and what have been called the best overall fighter of the Great War, the Albatross D.VII. I think it is fair to mention only around 320 Dr1's were produce and the German high comand  didn't give them to all the units in the front but just a selected few. Problems with the upper wings due to control failures and not a structural design prevented the plane from reaching the front. Two renown pilots were killed  heating the controversy and although they fixed the problem to certain extent the aircraft was doom because of the fast pace of technological advances in aircraft design and production. But how can we  explain that a plane that was built in such few numbers reached the fame it possessed ? By the end of the war 2500 camels were in production lines and they had another 2500 in flying conditions while the germans simply didn't have the capability of such numbers. What was  the cause of the flying circus ? Germany couldn't build the planes as the allies did  .. simply they didn't have the numbers and they had to adapt accordingly.

It is very difficult in a  game to make reality count ... I really hope HTC will give the camel all you guys suggest to make it historical accurate... next thing happening is suddenly everybody entering the arena will fly the camel. I would love to see that, but then the real life sharpness of the Dreidecker will be lost because in real life and so far all the literature I have read points at Dr1 being more maneuverable and being able to outturn the camel  and this is not a pure fruit of my imagination but the real facts cited by the experts in the historical period... Also we need to understand than this is a game and a business for HTC .. Sad but true is the fact that ppl go to our ww1 arena and after flying for less than an hour give up. I have come to realize this arena is not for everybody because it takes time , practice and effort to reach a level to match the existing players. We might be flying as is at the moment for a long time  simply because we do not have the numbers ww2 arenas have , unfortunately this is the truth.

Ehre

[meandog]

I hope HT does give the camel everything it needs...that way I can get back in the DR1 and start killing camels again...lol

[Yeager]

I'm not so sure the camel needs performance upgrading (it very well may) but I do think the Dr1 is in need of some adjustment somewhere in the grand scheme of things.  The lack of structural failure alone, especially when compared to the abundance of structural failures everywhere else, tends to make me think something is not as it should be.  Considering it had a history of upper wing failure due to greater lift on top wing coupled with shoddy workmanship and unprotected exposure to the elements. 

I'm just a casual gamer though, I don't know....I just play.  Or not 

[Wmaker]

I really don't like the idea of stepping on toes with regards to this issue (as I apparently did some time ago) but in the interests of clarity I'll have a shot at some warm and fuzzy input  

<sigh> ...and here we go again. It was already explained to you in that thread that you started why gyroscopic precession does nothing to make the aircraft turn better. It is physically impossible. If you think about the forces acting on an aircraft in a steady sustained horsontal banking turn, you should realize it yourself. No amount of anecdotes is going to change that. If you keep this in mind and read between the lines it's quite clear that the anecdotes talk about how the aircraft was easier to fly in one direction than the other in a turn. In general gyroscopic precession is a nessary evil, not any kind of advantage.

Ehre has dug up a reference to the Camels' optimum fighting altitude as 12,000 feet. Certainly it was known to be less than optimum above that altitude, and with the arrival of the SE5a the Camel was mainly relegated to low level work (ground attack etc) which seems to indicate that it didn't suffer much from flying in the dense air down low, a fact which Wmakers' airfoil info supports.

Actually the Göttingen airfoils were simply superior all the way compared to the thin airfoils that preceeded them, period. The thin airfoils were used due to a belief that thicker airfoils create excessive drag compared to the any increase in lift they may bring. Ludwig Prandtl from Göttigen University did work with the thin airfoils of the time and his research showed that thicker airfoils are the way to go. While that 298-foil is still far from the airfoils we see in GA aircraft of today, it was in many ways a real leap from the thin airfoils of the day simply because it could provide so much more lift per wing area with very very small drag penalty. Those later German airfoils were simply superior in all ways to any thin airfoils used at the time.

Some time ago I had a very interesting discussion with HiTech regarding the famous 'gyroscopic effect' as it applied to the Camel. There was some difference of opinion as to what in the literature qualified as hard data or evidence, and what should be disregarded. There was also (initially) some confusion as to what benefit this effect might have on turn performance. Eventually we arrived at a consensus (as far as I understood it) and it seems appropriate that I offer an explanation of the effect here for those unfamiliar with it.

Actually the matter is completely black and white. Either the gyroscopic presession helps the aircraft to turn better to one direction compared to the other or not. And no it doesn't. It is a clear fact. As I said it's simply physically impossible. And Hitech did a very good job explaining it to you. Drawing false conclusions from anecdotes isn't going to defy physics in any way.

Yes, there was a concensus what greates the effect and what it does. However it was clear from start to the end of that thread that the effect does nothing that makes an aircraft turn better.

Here's a link to the thread for everyone to read: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,288659.0.html

There is enough in the literature to suggest that Sopwith (following his experience with the Pup) deliberately designed the Camel to make full use of this effect.

Well certainly not designed to make use of the effect to make the Camel turn better because again it is physically impossible. Did they have to take it into consideration that they were going to install a rotary engine into the Camel? Of course. However the gyroscopic precession is more of a hinderance than a virtue...to any rotary engined aircraft, Fokker Dr.I and Camel included. And that is also clearly evident from Aces High's flightmodel. The engine was a product of its time. It was developed to get more HP per weight while still being able to keep the engined cooled compared to the earlier liquid cooled engines. The further the war progressed the more inferior those rotary engines got compared to the liquid cooled engines as more power was being extracted from them.

Most of the mass was concentrated in the first seven feet of the fuselage. The wings were well forward. In effect the centre of mass, centre of lift and centre of gyroscopic rotation were very close together. This allowed the aircraft to be turned gyroscopically (i.e. outside the flight envelope) in a right hand turn by simply banking right and pitching up. In fact the effect was so powerful that full opposite rudder was needed to prevent the aircraft entering a spin. Pilots reported a strong rush of air from the left side of the cockpit during the manoeuvre, and anecdotal evidence indicates that many high scoring Camel pilots believed the Camel was able to out turn any aircraft in a right hand turn.

It took us awhile to thrash all this out (it was initially difficult to sell a manoeuvre which takes place outside the flight envelope) but the breakthrough came when it was found the AH Dr1 can actually do the gyro turn. It's difficult to hold it for any length of time but it certainly can be performed. The AH Camel however merely drops the right wing.

Ehh...there's no such thing as "turning outside the flight envelope". I think you can say that if aircraft flies outside its flight envelope one of the following things happen, it departs from controlled flight due to a 0g stall, accelerated stall or experiences a sturctural failure due to excessive loading or flutter for example....or hits critical mach. Of course aircraft can depart from controlled flight due to various stability issues as well.

Hehe, I'm really curious to know what is this "gyro turn"? Please post a film of you performing it with the Dr.I in Aces High.

Dr1 drivers seem to like the idea that the triplane should be able to do it, and are unmoved that the Camel can't. My take on it is that nowhere in the literature is the Dr1 mentioned in relation to the gyro turn. The literature is full of reference to the Camel having this ability. It was designed specifically around it.

Please post a source which specifically discusses Camel's design process and states that it was designed to turn better using the gyroscopic presession. Saying so is complete nonsense. You can find tens of general quotes that refer to the Camel's ability to turn better to the right. I don't doubt it for a moment that it didn't have nicer handling chracteristics in a right turn. As I said before in the last thread about this. A small difference could be possible due to less control surface drag because you probably need less control input to fly it in a right turn as opposed to the left turn. But that's pretty much the only thing that can make a very very small difference.

The Dr1 was not (smaller engine mass, less power, mass distribution less than optimal for the effect) and the German attempt at fielding a dominant turn fighter was over. They stopped manufacture after only a few hundred, presumably when they realised that the Camel was superior. No doubt that the Dr1 could turn a little gyroscopically, but here I suspect that the AH model is correct... a brief snatch to the right. Whereas the Camel should be capable of a tidy reversal, at the very least, and more probably a full turn or more before stalling (from cruising speed).

"could turn a little gyroscopically"

Oh my....

So how is this little gyroscopical turn achieved compared to the better or faster gyroscopical turn?   I truly am intrigued.

Here's a quote from Windsock datafile special of the Dr.I regarding the end of production of the Dr.I:

"The third and final, production triplane batch (Dr.I 400/599/17) raised the total ordered to 320. When compared to the much larger Albatros and Pfalz production figures, the number was relatively insignificant. It was triplanes' slow speed, a serious disadvantage for a combat airplane, which persuaded Idflieg to restrict production for modest levels."

As can be seen it had nothing to do with realizing specifically that Camel was superior or the weight distribution or anything like that. Both the Camel and Dr.I were very maneuverable but in the end that doesn't win squadron vs. squadron aerial engagements. Actually, Camel was probably one of the easier opponents for it compared to the powerhouses like the Spad XIII and SE5a. Both Camel and Dr.I were rather slow and had generally poor performance at higher altitudes compared to the later inline engined fighters. IMO both Camel and Dr.I have gotten a mythical reputation that neither of them deserve. It was Fokker D.VII, Spad XIII and SE5a that ruled the roost in the end of the war. The low power rotary engines alone made Camel and Dr.I inferior to those three fighters.

The setup of the WWI and the shooting distancies in Aces High on the other hand greatly favor the more maneuverable fighters. Comparing WWI arena and real life is not a good idea in general.

[Yellow39]

IMO both Camel and Dr.I have gotten a mythical reputation that neither of them deserve.

The setup of the WWI and the shooting distancies in Aces High on the other hand greatly favor the more maneuverable fighters. Comparing WWI arena and real life is not a good idea in general.

I couldn't agree more ... 

[SCTusk]

Hello again Wmaker, thought you'd be out there on my six somewhere  I'm well aware of your blind spot with this issue but I don't see how anyone could follow that earlier thread to the end and not arrive at the same conclusions.

Do you understand that the gyroscopic effect causes a yaw to the right when you pull the stick back, proportionate (in the Camel probably a high proportion) to the amount of induced pitch?

Have you looked at the size of the fin/rudder on the Camel? Is it any suprise that an additional force in the yaw axis increases the rate of turn? Have you watched the T&B ball as you turn right? Notice how you have to kick hard left rudder to keep it centred? So what do you think happens if you pull backstick even more, or relax your opposite rudder?

Modern aerobatic pilots use gyroscopic precession created just from their props to perform some amazing 'outside the flight envelope' reversals and tumbles; damn this is like trying to convince someone the earth is round....