Message text >The Bristol flew with 14 different engines. Two versions of the >Falcon, the Arab, three different Hisso's, two different Puma's, >the Viper, the Liberty, the Wright, and the Packard. >Performance ranged from 94 for the Arab to 105 for the Falcon >III. This was a major problem with British aircraft of the time. >They didn't have a large aircraft engine industry so bought >from other countries. France was the major supplier but had >problems of her own as far as shipping engines to Britain. >Most test data show multiple engines with widely varying >performance levels. As far as doing that kind of thing for a >game you make a choice that represents and average of the >data and go with that.
>One thing I have noticed about the data is, where multiple >altitudes are listed, performance falls off at and average of >1mph per thousand feet for rotaries (this is very consistent >regardless of manufacturer or horsepower) and averages the >same for inline engines but is much less consistent based on >manufacturer, probably due to differences in carburation.
The VAST majority of Bristol F2B production, and I mean not even close in count, had the Falcon IIIs. I can copy and send you a table of the serials and what engines they had. Seems to me the Bristol would be better represented in the game with a speed increase OR two guns on the back.
Carbeuration, no. compression yes. The higher compression engines were better able to handle the thin air. (See technical articles on Allison v. Merlin engines, and DB601 v. DB603 engines). Since they inherently had a longer stroke, they could draw in more air/fuel, therefore, leaned out, they could produce more power at higher altitudes.
>Engines have to do more with speed and torque. Two WWI >aircraft with the same engine could show markedly differnt >performance.
Yes, but this has much more to do with wing area, wing loading, total weight, control surfaces sizes, deflection amount, etc. I'm not sure where you're going with the speed and torque thing. All engines have an optimal speed where HP and torque are maximized.
Longitudinal torque in an inline engine would affect the roll of an aircraft, not turn. If it did affect turn, we'd have a whole bunch of old Dodges and Chevys driving around cock-eyed, or breaking motor mounts every 1000 miles. Have you ever noticed in a high HP straight six car, when you gun the engine the right side of the vehicle lifts up more than the left? This is the torque of the engine. The crankshaft is spinning to the left, and wants to roll the whole car to the left, not turn. Now, apply this to a relatively low horsepower engine that weighs almost twice as much as current ones, and this effect is negated. The additional mass of the engine counters the low horsepower on the crankshaft.
>The D.III had a smaller vertical stabilizer than the >D.IIIa and I >suspect the size of the stabilizer combined with >engine >torque had something to do with the snap turn ability. >If >sudden power is applied with a sharp turn and a lack of >stability in that plane it would be possible to snap the aircraft.
I think you meant horizontal stablizer. Yes, the Pfalz DIII had almost no horizontal stabilizer. It was all rudder. Looking at models of both, the rudders are almost the same in area. In fact, I would say the one on the Albatros is slightly larger. However, the Albatros had a huge stabilizer. So, I will buy the Pfalz didn't have good directional control and was capable of better snap turns, but I would contend in BOTH directions. Same engine, same size, same weight, same basic layout, no stabilizer, all rudder. The only thing left to discuss is control. So the Pfalz had different length wires to the tail allowing the rudder to pull more to the left for a left turn? I doubt this is true.
I >also suspect that it involved a considerable loss of altitude. It >may also have contributed to the loss of pilots much as the >Camel did and may explain why the D.IIIa had an larger vertical >stabilizer. The smaller stabilizer would also have meant more >right rudder input while in flight to keep the aircraft straight. >One of the best quotes about control input involves the Camel >and went something like this. "The Camel is the only aircraft I >ever flew that required me to use left rudder to make a right >turn, and left rudder to make a left turn. You never used right >rudder. Therefore my left leg is much larger than my right".
This had everything to do with the rotary engine. Granted, the Camel had a small rudder, but the gyroscope up front is what gave the pilots fits. I think this was more pronounced in the Camels because they were not designed to handle the higher horsepower of the newer rotary engines; i.e. they were too short. Nieuport overcame this in the 28 with offset machine guns. The Fokker D.VIII, SSW D.III, Snipe, etc., all overcame this problem by a different means; increase the distance between the engine and the horizontal stabilizer.
I could debate all this until the cows come home, but I have made the points I would like to make, twice. I will let you have the last word and drop the subject. All I ask is that you consider what I have said.
>Pilots seem to think it was better than the Albatros. You have >to remember that part of the problem in showing differences in >maneuverability is constrained by the coarseness of the >system. There are only six hex-sides to use and when the >performance is so close it becomes difficult to show >differences which aren't that great. The D.XII has a slightly >better performance in the skid turn, but isn't capable of the >"stall" right and "stall" left maneuver since pilots reported that >it entered the stall suddenly and without warning and would >snap into a flat spin that it was nearly impossible to recover >from.
I'll take the game design stuff over there.
For a long-winded discussion on designing games and why decisions are made see my reply to kduke on this thread.
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
