A noobs report: WW1 Arena

[Anaxogoras]

Why not just post that you want the DR1 neutered in some way? That seems to be the gist of the complaints.

I'm not complaining, and I have absolutely no bias because I go elsewhere when I want a WW1 aviation fix.

There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.

Let me rephrase that... There is no data.

Err, let me try again... There is no data.

If you want to speak of accuracy, then by definition it's accuracy with respect to a known or accepted value, which in a flight sim ought to be in the form of test data.  Oh wait...

I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.

The model is neither valid or invalid.  You cannot apply validity or non-validity when there is no yard-stick against which to measure the model.

Not to pick on you FLS, but your posts have the virtue of being concise.

[CptTrips]

There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.
Let me rephrase that... There is no data.
Err, let me try again... There is no data.

I supect those that aquired that knowledge took it with them to their grave.

,
Wab

[FLS]

I'm not complaining, and I have absolutely no bias because I go elsewhere when I want a WW1 aviation fix.

There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.

Let me rephrase that... There is no data.

Err, let me try again... There is no data.

If you want to speak of accuracy, then by definition it's accuracy with respect to a known or accepted value, which in a flight sim ought to be in the form of test data.  Oh wait...

The model is neither valid or invalid.  You cannot apply validity or non-validity when there is no yard-stick against which to measure the model.

Not to pick on you FLS, but your posts have the virtue of being concise.

There is the properties of materials and there is engineering. We can make a better guess now about the strength of these aircraft and the forces on them then the designers could at the time. HTC didn't pull their numbers out of their hat and we don't know what data they have that we haven't seen.  I'll take their estimate over yours.

[Sid]

I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.

I guess your right FLS, I shall continue to search.

Fokker DR.I - Thoughts on Wing Failures

Just How Strong Was A WWI Aircraft?

A load on loads

[FLS]

Nice link on the wing failure. The author seems to think that a variance in construction quality accounts for the limited number of failures.

[Anaxogoras]

There is the properties of materials and there is engineering. We can make a better guess now about the strength of these aircraft and the forces on them then the designers could at the time. HTC didn't pull their numbers out of their hat and we don't know what data they have that we haven't seen.

How do you know?  That's a sincere question.  I've seen the "HTC knows best" argument many times before in the past.  The first time I saw it was in flight model discussions about the P-38L way back in Warbirds 1.x, and the skeptics clearly won that one.

The Dr1 and D.VII have very similar construction, but from what I see here, different load limits, so forgive me for finding what's reported here a bit fishy.

I'll take their estimate over yours.

Goodness!  That's a strong bit of rhetoric there.  Slow down.  Have I submitted any kind of estimate?  Have I claimed authoritative knowledge?

No.

[CptTrips]

I guess your right FLS, I shall continue to search.

Fokker DR.I - Thoughts on Wing Failures

Just How Strong Was A WWI Aircraft?

A load on loads

Great links Sid.

I found this quote interesting:

A surrendered Fokker D.VII (7774/18) was destruction tested in the USA at McCook Field in 1920. The wings held a load factor of 10.7g before the bottom wing (only, not the top) finally failed! Now THAT'S a strong WWI fighter design!

10g.  Hmmm.  

I have no idea how to gauge the g load the AH DVII is under at failure based on the the blackout percentage.  Maybe 4g at half blackout?

Wab

[Anaxogoras]

Static load tests were not so reliable.  That's one of the reasons why these aircraft sometimes suffered collapse in flight.  The variety of forces on the wings in flight were not accounted for on the ground.

But that's an interesting figure.

[CptTrips]

Static load tests were not so reliable.  That's one of the reasons why these aircraft sometimes suffered collapse in flight.  The variety of forces on the wings in flight were not accounted for on the ground.

But that's an interesting figure.

You're right, but static load testing was used a lot so I suspect the results were at least in the ball park or they wouldn't have found it useful.

So lets take a conservative value of 8g.

That still makes the AH DVII seem awfully fragile in comparison.

I suppose the simplest answer is for HTC to simple explain how they came about the current failure loads.  Knowing their source might save us all a bunch of guessing.

,
Wab

[FLS]

Why do they need to show you their data?

If you have data that conflicts with their model I'm sure they'd be happy to see it.

[CptTrips]

Why do they need to show you their data?

Why would they be afraid to?  You seem awfully defensive.
 


I'm not asking for a dissertation, just a clarification.  Its in everyones interest, HTC's most of all, to try and get a good accurate model.  This isn't an adversarial relationship.  You shouldn't try and make it one.

Regards,
Wab

[FLS]

How do you know?  That's a sincere question.  I've seen the "HTC knows best" argument many times before in the past.  The first time I saw it was in flight model discussions about the P-38L way back in Warbirds 1.x, and the skeptics clearly won that one.

The Dr1 and D.VII have very similar construction, but from what I see here, different load limits, so forgive me for finding what's reported here a bit fishy.

Goodness!  That's a strong bit of rhetoric there.  Slow down.  Have I submitted any kind of estimate?  Have I claimed authoritative knowledge?

No.

Calm down. In your estimate it's fishy.  I'm not claiming HTC is always correct but I stand by my statement that I'll take their estimate over yours. I also believe that if you find conflicting data HTC will consider it.  

[Anaxogoras]

What is my estimate FLS?  I wasn't aware that I had one.

[FLS]

Why would they be afraid to?  You seem awfully defensive.
 


I'm not asking for a dissertation, just a clarification.  Its in everyones interest, HTC's most of all, to try and get a good accurate model.  This isn't an adversarial relationship.  You shouldn't try and make it one.

Regards,
Wab

When did fear enter the discussion?  Why should HTC have to publish any and all data that they have every time somebody questions it? Why should research they've paid for be made available free to their competition?

I'm not being defensive when I point out that the burden is on you to show their model is wrong, it isn't on them to prove that it's correct. They have better things to do with their time.

[FLS]

What is my estimate FLS?  I wasn't aware that I had one.

Well I can't say I'm surprised. I'll suppose you agree with me then since you don't think you've posted an opinion to the contrary.