A noobs report: WW1 Arena

[FLS]

... If you can fly 30 to 40mph fast in the D.VII. Then you will get separation the DR.1 can't over come.

The top dive speed I can get out of our WWI planes without falling apart are as follow. All were tested with a quarter of fuel

1. DR.1  143mph

2. D.VII  181mph

3. F-1 camel 161mph

4.F.2B 165mph.

All of them have a lot of drag and slow back down to about 120 pretty fast then start to fall off from that. The D.VII seemed to do the best in a high alt controlled dive and I could keep in at about 170mph. The wings came off the F.2B and the D.VII the easiest if you pull up to fast. maybe someone who fly these planes more than I do can get better results.

[Delirium]

they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.

 

I whole heartedly agree!

[Tinribs]

The amount of g the aircraft can pull before structural failure is more relevant than dive speed,there doesnt seem to be any information on ww1 planes regarding this but bearing in mind its unlikely that any manufacturer would have wanted to kill pilots we can assume that they were all fairly robust in this department,early models of some aircraft (dr1 and d7) did have reported problems but these were quickly rectified.Sids testing found the following,
d7} halfway to blackout before structural failure
f1}a small visual circle remains before failure
dr1} well past the blackout point
f2b} not yet tested but I would guess midway between d7 and f1.
If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena.

aka Shotdown

[SCTusk]

If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena.

aka Shotdown

Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix 

[Anaxogoras]

The amount of g the aircraft can pull before structural failure is more relevant than dive speed,there doesnt seem to be any information on ww1 planes regarding this but bearing in mind its unlikely that any manufacturer would have wanted to kill pilots we can assume that they were all fairly robust in this department,early models of some aircraft (dr1 and d7) did have reported problems but these were quickly rectified/

Even the most robust WW1 aircraft could suffer wing failure if they dove fast enough.  I know of at least one SE5a pilot who ripped his wings while diving at a two-seater.  Aircraft like the sesquiplane Nieuports and the Albatros D.III and D.Va were notorious for lower wing failures, but the Austrians somehow fixed the problem, and their version of the D.III was supposed to have been very good.

As for g loads, a real pilot would have the feedback of his own body before he pulled so hard that he broke his aircraft.

[Tinribs]

Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix 

I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely Sids idea.

[Tinribs]

Even the most robust WW1 aircraft could suffer wing failure if they dove fast enough.  I know of at least one SE5a pilot who ripped his wings while diving at a two-seater.  Aircraft like the sesquiplane Nieuports and the Albatros D.III and D.Va were notorious for lower wing failures, but the Austrians somehow fixed the problem, and their version of the D.III was supposed to have been very good.

As for g loads, a real pilot would have the feedback of his own body before he pulled so hard that he broke his aircraft.

If youve gained experience of the planes in the ww1 arena it becomes a rarity to have a structural failure in a dive its far more common when pushing your aircraft to the limit in a turn fight,allthough you carnt feel the g you can see it in the respect of the extent of blackout.The margin for error in this respect on the d7,f1 and f2b is very small the dr1 is far more forgiving.  

[Sid]

If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena.

aka Shotdown

Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix  

I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely Sids idea.

I can't take any credit either, it was BnZs idea, but I agree with him.

What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr.1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.

This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?

[Tinribs]

Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix 

I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely BnZs idea.

[FLS]

Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.

[lyric1]

who is this "they" that you are referring to?

No names needed. Have not seen you do it if that is what you are concerned about.

[pervert]

Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.

DR1 doesn't break up during loops and looping turns etc because it seemingly has more drag through the maneuvers, now I've had a good bit of practice in it I can't remember the last time I broke a wing in a camel.

[Tinribs]

Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.

We have 4 planes in ww1 and with the numbers we get flying there very little chance of getting any more,I do not want the various characteristics of the aircraft changed just the one variable that there is very little information available on the G loading,call it a dr1 whine if you want but please explain to me how this would not have a beneficial effect on the arena.

[FLS]

Tinribs you want to change a plane model for gameplay reasons.  You don't see that as a problem?

[Anaxogoras]

Tinribs you want to change a plane model for gameplay reasons.  You don't see that as a problem?

You're missing the more important point.  There is no data for when these aircraft would break under g load.  You could just guess at values and have as good a chance as being right as what's currently there, because there is no data.