A noobs report: WW1 Arena

[FLS]

It would be nice if you could post some unambiguous data to support your claims.

[DrBone1]

Everything B4Buster said

[Bruv119]

if you see me on fester,

PM me and we can do some   dr1 vs camel fights.   

[Anaxogoras]

It would be nice if you could post some unambiguous data to support your claims.

It's already been posted before.  But here it is again (in addition to the Dr1 data I just posted):

Sid posted these (from Bennett's Three Wings for the Red Baron)






And here's data for the Sopwith Camel from J.M. Bruce.  F.1/3 was a prototype used to test various engines.  The speed of a production model like B2312 was significantly slower because the production quality of the license built Clergets was poor.  But most sources quote the airspeed from the prototype, and not the production model.

[FLS]

Thanks for posting. Your source states that the DR1 and F1 speeds were about the same on the deck. Why do you think it should be slower?

[SCTusk]

Annoys me to no end that the Camel introduced here is no more than a target drone

 

I fly the Camel almost exclusively, so I can add my support for the general direction this thread is going. I seem to be one of the few regulars in the WW1 arena who have stuck with the Camel to the point of what passes for expertise, and I'm convinced that in a 'fair' 1v1 fight with two equally skilled opponents the Dr1 will always win over the Camel. Why is it so? It seems to me the easiest answer might be something that's been overlooked, but Hitech would have to speak to that as he knows 'the code'.

The thing I'm thinking about is the prop drag in a power-off dive.... with the prop milling as it does the drag is WAY more than if the prop was stopped, and I believe this may not have been modelled? If so it would explain why the airspeed builds up so rapidly to the point of structural failure. If I'm correct and the drag of the spinning prop could be increased it would 1. slow the Dr1 dive to the point of disadvantage and 2. enable the other aircraft (with less inherent drag) to outperform the Dr1 when they have an alt advantage and allow safer diving attacks, which seems as it should be. Diving one of those ragwings ought to feel almost like parachuting with a few holes in the canopy, but we all end up sitting in a canoe if we hold more than 45 degrees dive for more than a few seconds.

I really think this is worth looking into, I know from flying RC model aircraft that the prop drags more when spinning, and electronic controllers (ESC's) have a braking function to avoid this. 

[Zester]

I have been flying the F2b at least once a week for a couple of months and I am by no means a good fighter jock but there does seem to be a problem here. I thought with superior speed the F2b should be able to do a shall pass and speed away for another pass on a DR1 that should be a lot slower. That DR1 turns so fast that they usually are on my six and almost GAINING on me well before I can get out of range. I only have a few kills, but they are from the rear gunner or collisions not from tactics. 

[Spikes]

I wish score was removed from the WWI arena, even the WW2 arenas, but WWI would be a start. There are a few guys in there that have attitude and won't switch as stated.

[Anaxogoras]

Thanks for posting. Your source states that the DR1 and F1 speeds were about the same on the deck. Why do you think it should be slower?

I said that the Dr1 was ~10mph slower above 10k ft, and I think that because it's exactly what Bennett says, and it fits the data I presented.

Bennett says it's likely the speeds were similar on the deck.  Truthfully, there's no good data for that, but it's no leap of faith to infer that neither of these aircraft were doing 115mph at seal level.

[FLS]

SCTusk if you compare glide ratios with the prop stopped vs windmilling you'll see a difference in drag.

[hitech]

The thing I'm thinking about is the prop drag in a power-off dive.... with the prop milling as it does the drag is WAY more than if the prop was stopped, and I believe this may not have been modelled? If so it would explain why the airspeed builds up so rapidly to the point of structural failure. If I'm correct and the drag of the spinning prop could be increased it would 1. slow the Dr1 dive to the point of disadvantage and 2. enable the other aircraft (with less inherent drag) to outperform the Dr1 when they have an alt advantage and allow safer diving attacks, which seems as it should be. Diving one of those ragwings ought to feel almost like parachuting with a few holes in the canopy, but we all end up sitting in a canoe if we hold more than 45 degrees dive for more than a few seconds.

It's already modeled.

HiTech

[FLS]

I said that the Dr1 was ~10mph slower above 10k ft, and I think that because it's exactly what Bennett says, and it fits the data I presented.

Bennett says it's likely the speeds were similar on the deck.  Truthfully, there's no good data for that, but it's no leap of faith to infer that neither of these aircraft were doing 115mph at seal level.

Maybe I misread your comment that the DR1 was a worse offender. Why do you think neither one would go 115 mph at sea level?

[Wmaker]

Here's a n intereasting discussion regarding the top speed of the Dr.I on another forum: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34238-fokker-dr-i-maximum-speed.html


A speed chart from that thread by Kacey from aerodrome's forum:

[Anaxogoras]

Maybe I misread your comment that the DR1 was a worse offender. Why do you think neither one would go 115 mph at sea level?

I have reasons, but none of them are the kind of hard evidence we're used to seeing (such is WW1 aircraft performance).

I think the F.1/3 Camel did 115mph TAS, maybe even a bit faster.  I recall another source quoting 118mph as the sea level airspeed for the F.1/3, but I'm not sure I could find it again.  When I compare the performance gap between the F.1/3 and B2312, and if the gap were constant down to sea level, then I might expect the B2312 to be somewhere around 111-112mph.

As for the Dr.1, the best speed we've seen is 116mph at sea level with a 110hp Le Rhone, which J.M. Bruce didn't find credible.  And even if it were true, the 110hp Oberusal was an inferior copy of the Le Rhone.  In fact, the Le Rhone was such a great little engine that Trenchard ordered his Camel squadrons to replace their 130hp Clerget 9b's with 110hp Le Rhones in the winter of 1917.  Many sources copy the 115mph figure for the Dr1, from someone who copied it from someone else, and so on...and from what I can see, the only 115mph data for the Dr1 is with that experimental 145hp Oberusal.

Anyway, those are my reasons.

------------

Nice graph wmaker!

[Chalenge]

I think AH has the Dr.1 modeled as the true plane would have been in its prime. The data from Bennets book was taken from late war after the Dr.1 had passed into obscurity. I believe if you want the ultimate WWI dogfight you should look to the Fokker D.VIIf versus Sopwith Dolphin. The Camel vs Dr.1 battles everyone considers to be prime WWI "typical" was actually from a very small period of the war that spanned maybe six months but in actual flying time was more like forty-five days.