DR1
Looking at the maneuver cards I find some oddities. The DR1 uses a D deck, and the Camel used a C deck, the C deck moves the plane along a bit farther, yet both planes had a top speed of 110 mph. The D7 and the SE5 use the same N deck, yet the D7 is 14 mph slower the SE5. The C deck is about 60% of the N deck, in movement, while 110mph is not 60% of 138mph. Comments or explanations?
The D7 uses the L deck, which is slower than the SE5a's N deck.
When comparing speeds you have to add the length of the plane card to the length of the blue line, so the D deck is 8/9 (89%) the speed of the C deck. The C deck is 90% as fast as the N deck.
Last edited by tuladin; 10-11-2010 at 08:09.
Speeds are done in bands (20 kph iirc) so they're not going to directly tally - otherwise every single aircraft would need a unique deck. Additionally speed figures are notoriously erratic - engine type, fuel and especially altitude created wildly differing performance figures. Comparing like-for-like (ie. same altitude) even the lowest-powered Camels had a marginal speed advantage over the Dr.I, while those with better engines gave a pretty noticeable edge, and the RNAS's favoured Bentley BR1 quite a hefty one.
Last edited by Dom S; 10-11-2010 at 08:21.
Additional thought - I don't know how you've gotten "The C deck is about 60% of the N deck, in movement, while 110mph is not 60% of 138mph." - C deck moves about 114mm on a long straight card, N deck about 127mm, so that's 90%, not 60%.... (The Camel comes out a little better than it should because of where it falls in the speed "band" as it were.) The bands (supplied by Andrea) are:
201 km/h+ A, N (a straight is 100% of a card)
181-200 B,C,F,H,L,M,O (80% of a card)
161-180 D,I,J,K. (60% of a card)
141-160 E,G,P,XB*,XC*. (50% of a card)
121-140 XA*,XD. (40% of a card)
Remember that 80% of a card doesn't equal "80% of the speed of an aircraft with 100% of a card" since you're adding the length of the plane's card too when measuring the move.
Last edited by Dom S; 10-11-2010 at 08:24.
You have to add the length of the card to the length of the blue line to get the actual speeds.
The cards are 67mm long so:
A, N deck = 67mm + 61mm = 128mm (100%)
B,C,F,H,L,M,O = 67mm + 48mm = 115mm (90%)
D,I.J.K = 67mm + 35mm = 102mm (80%)
E,G.P = 67mm + 29mm = 96mm (75%)
XD = 67mm + 23mm = 90mm (70%)
The larger Giant cards are 82mm long so:
XA = 82mm + 7mm = 89mm (70%)
XB,XC = 82mm + 13mm = 95mm (74%)
These numbers correspond to the range bands in Dom's post.
Last edited by tuladin; 01-24-2011 at 09:24.
The speed figure for the Dr1 is usually given as 102 mph, which is generally acknowledged as optomistic. The speed figure given for the camel is about 115 mph, hence the longer move on the card.
Many planes had a variety of engines over their lives so speed could vary considerably depending on which engine is installed. Also speed varied dramatically with altitude as most engines were normally asperated (no superchargers). As a general rule they were fastest around sea level but the rate of speed loss with altitude varied from plane to plane.
Pooh
I did not think about the aircraft card as movement, and I was going by memory with the decks.
Wiki gives the Camel with a top speed of 115, and the DR1 at 115, theses numbers are backed up at several other sites. Some places rate the Camel at 117.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_Dr.I
From what I remember reading the two planes were almost identical.
At the end of the day you also have to consider that certain things are done for game balance and speed/ease of play.
A SPAD XIII could go slower and turn tighter than it's cards allow. Conversely, a DVII Fokker would not be shooting if it played all three of it's 'short stalls' in a row (as it represents the fact it could go almost vertical with it's prop and hover, not unlike a helicopter, but such an application would mean no shooting at the guy in front of you realistically). So, some things get smoothed out to make the game play easier and be less complicated.
Last edited by Maniac; 10-11-2010 at 18:04.
"Wiki gives the Camel with a top speed of 115, and the DR1 at 115, theses numbers are backed up at several other sites. Some places rate the Camel at 117."
- See earlier comments; speed figures are meaningless without context - grabbing the official British figures for the Camel, it has 9 different top speeds listed, varying between 104.5 and 118.5 mph, depending on engine type and altitude, and even then the figures are nowhere near complete (for three of the four engines there are only numbers for 10,000 and 15,000 feet, while the other has 20,000 feet too - most types performed notably better lower than that, with optimum performance down in the thicker air.)
The oft-quoted 115 mph for the Dr.I is at sea level, and a suspect figure anyway - 103 mph at 13,000 feet is also generally reported, and a good 10 mph slower than most Camels at similar altitudes.
Dom.
PS - Actually even the Wiki page you linked to for the Dr.I notes speed as 102.5mph, not 115.
PPS - Never trust other sites backing up wikipedia unless they have references to go with it - often as not their info came *from* the wikipedia entry....
Last edited by Dom S; 10-11-2010 at 16:03.
I apologize. I meant no disrespect.Originally Posted by Tom Cundall
When LGKR started making his visual comparisons a few weeks ago, I got curious about exactly how far the planes are going with the different maneuver decks, so I got out my ruler and measured all the straight moves. I thought maybe this information might be helpful to those who wanted to compare them to the real speeds of the planes.
As to how fast the actual planes flew, it's an interesting discussion on which I have no expertise and no valid opinion.
Again I am very sorry if my comments seemed in any way impolite.
Last edited by tuladin; 10-13-2010 at 17:18.
As many have stated above, most scouts used a variety of engines. In the case of the Dr1, almost all of them used the 110 hp Oberusel URII which was a copy of the French Le Rhone rotary. With this engine, the 102 mph figure is the one use. There were some more powerful engines tried out on an experimental basis that gave better numbers (like the 115 mph figure you quote) but they were not used in production aircraft.
The camel had at least a half a dozen different engines used in production planes so a variety of top speeds are possible. The 115 mph is probably as good a number as any to use.
Interestingly, the Fokker DVII used 2 principal engines, the older 180 hp mercedes engine gave only mediocre climb performance but when given the new 185 hp BMW III engine it became one of the fastest climbing planes in the war.
If you want some details there is a new series of fighter vs. fighter Osprey books that give a good overview. Some of the titles include: Spad XIII vs. Fokker DVII, Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr1, and SE 5a vs. Albatros DV.
Pooh
I closed my laptop on that wiki page stating 115, now it is 102, the problem with Wiki is`anyone can change it. Check back in 10 minutes it will be back to 115, there are other sights that state 115 as well, I will have to did out some books.
Larry - I think something got lost in translation there - nothing in your posts to offend anyone in any way.
Mark - ahh, that is rather an issue with wikipedia. The 103 mph at 13,120 feet is repeated in a good few books and appears to come from proper testing, so is definitely the one I trust as it were. I'll also yet again repeat the point if a site says "top speed 115 mph" that's utterly meaningless for comparison - you absolutely need a figure of "xxx mph at xx thousand feet" - no altitude, no value.
Dom.
Last edited by Dom S; 10-12-2010 at 03:04.
http://www.fokkerdr1.com/Dr1_Specifications.htm
This page makes us both correct.
It also makes the Dr.I slower than the Camel, as the 115 is at sea level....
This page claims yes and no
http://www.aviation-history.com/sopwith/camel.htm
the same site only gives one 115 speed for the DR1.
http://www.aviation-history.com/fokker/dr1.html
Again, and excuse shouting - ALTITUDE MATTERS! 115 at sea level can't be compared to 115 at 10,000 feet, as all WWI aircraft are slower at higher altitudes.... There's no reliable figure for the Camel at sea level, but we do have figures at 10,000 and 15,000 feet:
Le Rhone - 118.5 / 111.5
Clerget - 113 / 106.5
Bentley BR1 - 115 / 110
Mono. Gnome - 117.5 / 107
Obviously enough the performance at 13,120 feet (since the German trials height was 4000 metres, hence having that figure) will fall in between that at 10 and 15 thousand, so even the slowest (Clerget) Camel will be around 108-109 at a guess, and the others faster, versus the Dr.I at 103 mph....
Dom, abandoning thread....
I guess that is the problem we don't have any reliable sources. Speeds seem to vary from plane to plane, and person to person.
Thanks all for your input, but until I find more convincing evidence otherwise the DR1 will be using the “C” deck
You can do what you like, obviously but the information for the Dr1 and Camel isn't any worse than for most other WW1 planes and better than some. I've read a number of books on WW1 planes (although I don't claim to be an authority) and the 102.5 at 13K ft seems to be an "official" number, that is, its the speed the Germans claimed it could do.
Any confusion about the camel comes from the fact that it used a wide variety of engines. Even so, the speed figures we get from the most common engine types (clerget 130 & 140 hp engines and the BR 1 engine all give faster speeds than for the Dr1.
As I pointed out on the nexus site, by going to "C" deck, you're giving up a number of advantages unique to the plane including the tightest right turn of any scout. So do what makes you happy but I believe you're taking away from the game and the Dr1 more than you get by switching to the Camel's deck.
Pooh
I guess the issue is that the game has generic bands, the camel falls just above, the DR1 just below. This creates a flaw where two almost identical planes preform differently. We can adjust the bands so they are the same, whether using the C or D deck for both. Going with the D may make it on par with the Albatross speed wise. Now lets toss in the Sopwith triplane, that is faster than the DR1, and the Albatross but on a D deck. Maybe what is needed is a Camel that can use C and D decks based on model. There is also the split speed turns that are in the WWII game, and not in the WWI version. Most of the time it was full throttle however.
An other thing to look at is drag coefficient, this is a bit lower on the DR1 The DR1 has one horse power to 11.74 lbs, depending on the engine the Camel is one horse power to 13.22 to 1 to 11.19. I have a hard time going along with the much faster Camel.
The most offcial figures I could find:
Fokker Dr1 - 102.5 mph at 13,120 ft
Sopwith Triplane - 110 mph at 6,500 ft
Sopwith camel (BR 1 engine) - 116.5 mph at 6,500 ft & 111 mph at 10,000 ft.
It shows the tripe about half way between the Dr1 and Camel speed wise.
Pooh
I think when Tom used the word "respect" he was showing you respect and not demanding respect from you... I am pretty sure it was meant as a compliment and required no apology!
In the Yahoo group for Wings of War this same discussion has proven somewhat heated, but one member pointed out that:I'll say what I said there: It is the thing I like most about Wings of War. You can play it simple and fast... complicated, realistic and slow... or any measure in between!
Last edited by The Cowman; 10-13-2010 at 10:58. Reason: typo(s)
I haven't seen any posts here that I thought were out of line. I hope everyone else feels the same way. This has been a lively discussion that has forced me to go back and look at some of my reference books.
As my group has seen fit to depart from the rules as printed, I'm not about to critisize someone else for doing so. So everyone have fun playing what has to be the best set of WW1 air combat rules I've come across.
Pooh
Off topic but...
I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to post that comment Ken. I have followed this discussion with great interest & my own post was intended as a light hearted compliment to both Dom and Larry for their out and out "hardcoreness". I removed my post because, as the discussion developed what I considered to be a more 'serious' undercurrent, my comment seemed to me to be inappropriate. I feel I may have inadvertently steered the tone of this discussion (to which I have made no contribution) in the wrong direction so apologies to anyone who interpreted my words as a criticism.
Tom
Last edited by Tom Cundall; 10-17-2010 at 04:27.
My bad. I didn't get the right meaning from your post. Sometimes, in written correspondence, its hard to "hear" the tone in which something is said, and the meaning gets garbled that way.
Thanks for clearing it up, and thanks for the original complement.
Larry
I found some states that do not go along with those speed ratings. Heaver planes with more drag at equal thrust, do not fly faster.
DR1 Camel
Weight 1,292 lbs 1,455lbs
Wing span 23ft 7 in 26ft 11in
Wing area 201 ft² 231 ft²
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0323 0.0378
Drag area: 6.69 ft² 8.73 ft²
The camel used cables to hold the wings together, the DR1 did not.
If the official speed for the DR1 is 102mph at 13,000 feet, the speed at sea level would be around 115mph, as 115 is faster then 102, the maximum speed would be 115, not 102. A majority of the sources go along with this speed rating, for the DR1The speed ratings for the camel are all over the place, but seem to be around the 115-117 area. I cannot find production numbers for he engine types, for the camel, it could be that a majority were the 150 hp type, this could account for the faster speeds, however the fastest I found was 225, bigger engines generally are heaver, however all the weights I found stay the same.
How many of the camels had the larger engines?
I have read that pilots accounts of cruse speed for the two planes are around 90mph, note that cruse speed is not max speed, and as in your car going from 90-115 would take a longer amount of time then to go from 0-90.
Mark,
I think you flogging a dead horse here. If you want to run the Camel and the Dr1 the same speed, do it. But i don't think you're going to convince many others to follow suit. The lion's share of the authoritative evidence I've seen states that the camel was faster. Annecdotal evidence from German pilot accounts states they couldn't catch allied scouts.
I've both read and heard that German scouts were optimized for high rates of climb not level speed. This is reflected in the propellor design and wing shape.
As for engines:
The Royal Naval Flying Corps used mostly the BR1 series (140 hp & 150 hp)
The British Air service in early 1917 used mainly the 130 hp clerget and later used the 140 hp clerget.
The Americans used a different engine of about 150 hp.
The Dr1 used almost exclusively a 110 hp engine, which they had a lot of trouble with.
Rotary engines had very little throttle control. What throttle control they did have was used mainly to adjust the engine and not for acceleration/decelleration. They were mostly on or off. During cruise they would be on and therefore going full speed. To lower the speed they would use a blip switch which momentarily turned the engine off. I doubt they would be doing this much in combat.
Let's just enjoy the game!
Pooh
Don't worry about the deck mistake Mark. Lots of people make that mistake.
Hunter
Yes, maybe so, I am just in search of the truth, don't really care what the consensus is. The radial engines had a off, idle and full power setting.
However an overwhelming majority of the sources I have found state that the camel and the DR1 are around the same speed, with the camel being slightly faster. Is this enough to be a different maneuver deck? The truth is out there somewhere.
Why are your sources more credible then others?
Just a heads up for anyone following along on this thread. I would avoid posting anymore on this posting. This same subject line has been started on the wow_nexus egroup and it has gotten nasty. The original poster will not be budged from the posted viewpoint no matter the evidence to the contrary. My best advice is for everyone to see that their is no reason to beat this subject anymore and just step away with no agreement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks