The Siemens-Shuckert D.III (deck O) also has two 90s in each direction, IIRC.Originally Posted by Jager
The Siemens-Shuckert D.III (deck O) also has two 90s in each direction, IIRC.
Last edited by brdavis; 10-18-2017 at 10:24. Reason: add deck letter
Dang, right you are; old brains and memory functions
And the wing loading is 5.8ppsf.
Hmm, might have to look at power to weight ratios
Already behind this for the WW2 planes
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
.............and the even MORE "astounding" "unequaled" manoeuvrability Fokker D.VIII has only ONE L & R 90, the same as the mediocre Nieuport 28 and the Hanriot HD.1
If the D.VIII has only one, then no way should the Pup have 2.................
On the other hand, if the Nieuport 28 has one, then maybe the Pup deserves a second.
The over-fast, over-manoeuvrable Sopwith Triplane's 'U' deck has 2 right 90s, and no left
The Sopwith Camel's 'C' deck has 3 right 90s, and no left
I'd be inclined to give the Pup 2 rights and no left ('D' deck as is) or perhaps add just ONE left 90
I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!
There are times I almost think it would be better for generic card decks for early/mid/late war with 3 of each option (sharp turns, straight, stalls, sideslips, ect) and give us a list of what cards go in a deck for each plane. Then they could sell extra decks generating extra income while we get to build more decks for our collection. Each era would have the correct speeds/turns for the time and fit in better. Not sure if this is an option, but an interesting idea.
Plus side, no decks needed in plane boxes, less bulk to haul around, easier to bring in shapeways planes.
Down side, limited card supply for larger collections, chance of misbuilt decks during a game, would require more expense to build up for large collections.
I guess it really depends on how many different cards there are for each timeline.
Opps, wing loading for the SS D.III/IV is 9+. I used the empty weight by mistake
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
I'm not really sure the D.VIII was that astoundingly maneuverable..............and the even MORE "astounding" "unequaled" manoeuvrability Fokker D.VIII has only ONE L & R 90, the same as the mediocre Nieuport 28 and the Hanriot HD.1
It was fast, though faster post-war with proper supply of caster oil and a different engine.
It could roll fast, but turning is a different issue.Wing loading is 11.8ppsf.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
It is interesting - well at least to me - that after this thread has gone off in various different directions we still come back to either leaving it as is or adding a single left 90 to the 'D' deck for the Pup..............and the even MORE "astounding" "unequaled" manoeuvrability Fokker D.VIII has only ONE L & R 90, the same as the mediocre Nieuport 28 and the Hanriot HD.1
If the D.VIII has only one, then no way should the Pup have 2.................
On the other hand, if the Nieuport 28 has one, then maybe the Pup deserves a second.
The over-fast, over-manoeuvrable Sopwith Triplane's 'U' deck has 2 right 90s, and no left
The Sopwith Camel's 'C' deck has 3 right 90s, and no left
I'd be inclined to give the Pup 2 rights and no left ('D' deck as is) or perhaps add just ONE left 90
[Edit]
It seems to me these are the two most sensible options.
It should be pointed out that the wing loading of the DVIII is incredibly high (10.6 pounds per square foot) as opposed to 4.8 for the Pup. The one 90 deg may simulate a 'break turn' due to its high rate of roll but there is no way its big wing loading could allow it to sustain a second 90 degree..............and the even MORE "astounding" "unequaled" manoeuvrability Fokker D.VIII has only ONE L & R 90, the same as the mediocre Nieuport 28 and the Hanriot HD.1
If the D.VIII has only one, then no way should the Pup have 2.................
See list and text underneath here: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...178#post218178
Barry
I'm wondering if the second would be due to it's hang on prop ability, so it trades vertical flight as part of the overall move, so from a 2D perspective, it turns more tightly.
The amount of VF wouldn't be enough for a climb counter.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Opps! It was the Fokker DVII which did the prop-hang thing. The D.VIII was the former E.V monoplane and was known as the 'Flying Razor Wing'.
The DVIII used a fuselage and engine cowling similar to the Fokker Triplane but is credited with a much higher speed as it lacked the Triplane's 'three wing drag'.
It was also credited with high manoeuvrability which I believe refers to its rate-of-roll, as a function of its small wingspan. On paper its turning circle is very poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII
Harker's page credits the DVIII with a 110 hp Oberusel as doing 115 mph at GL and 112 at 10,000 feet. By comparison Harker quotes the similar engined Fokker Triplane as 102 max (presumably GL). Later German trials found the Triplane could only achieve 97 mph at 9,200 feet.
http://sjharker.customer.netspace.ne...erformance.pdf
Barry
Last edited by 'Warspite'; 10-23-2017 at 16:06. Reason: added more information
Sorry, my bad. But what's an "I" between friends, eh?
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Sorry, my bad. But what's an "I" between friends, eh?
Karl
Barry
Is one factor to account for the Fokker DVIII's turn ability is its stall speed? Maintaining a safe vertical turn is easier with a low stall speed.
And returning to the main topic - another possible reason for giving the Pup the extra turn is its stall speed was fairly low?
Last edited by Nicola Zee; 10-23-2017 at 23:53.
I totally agree with you on the Pup as stall speed is also a function of wing-loading. The lower the wing-loading the lower the stall speed. For that same reason the Fokker DVIII would have a higher stall speed, possibly one of the highest in the group of aircraft which we use. Pup pilots - especially at altitude - stressed their ability to hold height in a turn, etc, and that is also because the Albo's stalling speed was higher than theirs.
Additional:
I should add that several factors can effect an aircraft's stalling speed. Wing-loading (pounds per square inch of wing area or its metric equivalent), aerodynamic drag (design factors) and power/thrust. The use of wing flaps can also alter the wing profile and may hold-off a stall for a while. But these were post-WW1 developments.
For example the F-104 Starfighter had an awful wing-loading due to its small wing area but got away with controlled flight due to its great thrust. The F-104 also had an awful accident record. It was not the sort of aircraft to try to glide in. It was virtually a piloted rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...04_Starfighter
The WW2 Messerschmitt Bf 109 had a tolerable wing-loading at the start of the Second World War but this increased during the war as other weapons and heavier engines were fitted. At the end of the war German pilots described its handing characteristics near the ground as 'malicious'. It was not a happy aeroplane to land as evidenced by 5% of losses in take-off or landing accidents. That's 1500 machines written-off.
Barry
That is a very good point, esp. since we have no high/low speeds in WGF.
An interesting point, though: looking at the plane stats in Hostile Aircraft, both the D.7 and D.8 have minimum speeds of 4. The Pup is a 3.
I'd have to dig for stall speeds
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
"Fr ends"?Sorry, my bad. But what's an "I" between friends, eh?
Karl
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks