Any interest in an alternative Dr1 FM?

[+peter01 2]

Been flying all the planes a while now, and although Thirdwires Dr1 FM is interesting and has some character, must say I tend not to fly that one much...pity, the Dr1 was THE WW1 plane.

 

So I've redone one, without the tail heaviness/propensity to climb, better roll, climb and rudder. Its fun to fly for me, not dissimiliar to TKs but substanially redone.

 

But not sure whether to upload this one as an alternative , so.... waddya think? Do people or does everyone like Thirdwires? If interest in an alternative I'll upload here on forum, for feedback.

 

I'd hate to upload to CA's download section an alternative FM for this plane especially, that even slighly detracted from the game experience.

Edited August 4, 2008 by peter01

[deep 5]

Yes please! I enjoy all your flight models. Every one has a different character.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

I really don't fly the Dr1 but I would deffinatly try it.If it's like your others I'm sure it will make the plane much more realistic and more importantly...fun.

[+NeverEnough 78]

I'd download it in a heartbeat! I love the DR1, but the stock fm could certainly be improved.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks guys, looks like some interest, and maybe I'm not the only one with that view...

 

Thanks Deep, yes character, its what I like too, and making them different to one another in a way that seems "right" (in my mind, and with the limitations of the FM). TK does this very well too, and for better or worse his Dr1 has loads of character. Do you have a force feedback stick?

 

Anyway, in line with that, this one is a slightly different in feel to any I have done. Seems appropriate both being different and in how it feels, just wouldn't feel right if it was basically the same as all the others. I like TKs Camel very much, partly for that reason too.

 

With this particular FM, I am very keen to know what you think, good or bad. If you don't like it, I don't mind, I'll just include it as an alternative FM in the Dr1 folder in the main download. If you do think its okay, then, I'll put TKs as the alternative :), with my AI changes.

 

FOKKERDR1_DATA.zip

Edited August 4, 2008 by peter01

[+Baltika 85]

Thanks peter

[don246 65]

You Bet Peter YES PLEASE.

[Guest B. Bandy RFC]

...the Dr1 was THE WW1 plane.

I've redone one, without the tail heaviness/propensity to climb, better roll, climb and rudder....

 

I'll try to find the "Smithsonian Air & Space" article and digitize/attach it for everyone's reference, but in a nut shell, relatively recent computer-assisted wing model research has shown that the middle wing of the DR1 was next to useless for generating lift; it severely interfered with the low and high pressures generated by the wings above and below it.

 

So, Peter's right on the mark with reducing the DR1's climb at least, and with all that wing-weight forward, I imagine it wasn't too tail heavy either. However, it was an exceptionally responsive plane by all accounts though...

 

Looking forward to trying it out, and thank you for your dedication Peter!

[deep 5]

Thanks Peter01! I don't have a FFB stick, I go by the sound of the stall coming on. Do you have one? Would you recommend it?

[+Tailspin 3]

Yet another German plane that was recalled due to wing problems, the top wing generated more than 2 1/2 times the lift as the bottom. This is why the top wing, weakened either by shoddy workmanship and/or water leakage causing the wing spars to rot, could come off...even in level flight. Fokker tried to fix it but the Dr 1 never recovered from this reputation in most German pilot's eyes. It was said to be very light on the controls, even the ailerons which like most WWI aircraft were still deemed relatively ineffective, and very powerful in rudder and elevator control. Directionally unstable (which contributed to its great maneuverablilty) and very tiring to fly the Dr1 was dangerous, to the enemy that is, only in the hands of a skilled pilot. It was also too slow and a poor performer at higher altitudes. Yeah, I know, tell all that to MVR. However its likely that without him, the Dr 1 would not have gained the the fame it did.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks Peter01! I don't have a FFB stick, I go by the sound of the stall coming on. Do you have one? Would you recommend it?

 

Yes I do, but if your happy with what you have, I wouldn't recommend changing. The planes probably feel a bit different with different joysticks not just stalls, whether FFB or not, so I was just wondering.

[Bandy 3]

As promised, here are some select takes from the Jan 2008 Air & Space mag. The whole article is a good read. It is mentioned that an aerodynamicist, Jerome Hunsaker, "...saw the fallacy of the triplane arrangement and in 1916 published a critique of it. ... A German translation of the work did much to dampen triplane hopes."

 

It is also mentioned that IF the DR1 could out climb the Camel, it would have been because of the pitch of the DR1's propeller to deliver maximum power at climb rather than cruising. "Fokker Triplanes did in fact lack in top speed what they possessed in climb".

 

The section on rudder configuration and handling is especially interesting: one-piece rudder verses fixed fin + rudder, but perhaps this is more common knowledge among the CA audience...

 

 

 

[deep 5]

Hi B Bandy RFC,

 

A very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks Bandy, it is an interesting article.

 

Funnily enough both well known triplane designs, the Dr1 and the Tripe, were considered to have very good climb, both by contemporary pilots (and others) as well as researchers (as against theoreticians and modellers).

 

For example, the Tripe, from my understanding, wasn't as manoeuvrable as some (eg Pup), but its always noted for its excellent climb!

 

In terms of drag, the Tripe did 115mph, same as Camel with a bigger engine. its a pretty good speed for the Tripe with a 110hp engine. Other factors of course such as 2 guns etc make a difference, but since they were done by the same designer with the same knowledge about such areodynamic effects, and they are similar, you'd think their drag profile in things other than the wings wouldn't be so dissimilar either.

 

So just wonder if three wings in itself increased drag, in level flight or in a climb? The Tripe obviously is different to the Dr1.

 

I guess the rudder stuff on the E3 also partly explains why it and other early planes would have been so hard to fly, especially in combat. I wonder if fixed rudders can be simulated in FE using say flaps or lift devices (as rudders)?

 

Just some thoughts.

Edited August 9, 2008 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Well, no feedback, mmm...

 

Anyway, decided to do this again, and move further away from TKs FM.

 

Its a good 'un ... sure many of you will find it a real pleasure to fly.

 

Different to any other somewhat. Its light (maybe realistic, maybe not, but feels right), you just feel like just throwing it around . Roll is average, as is climb, but with lowish stall speed. Feels good to fly around, feels very good to fly in a dogfight.

 

You will certainly feel superior to any other plane in a dogfight. Stalls are nicely done I think, and this with a lot of motion means a dogfight feels great, despite its superiority.

 

FOKKERDR1_DATA.zip

Edited August 14, 2008 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

Regarding the Triplane:

 

According to Cecil Lewis, "[o]f all machines, the Triplane remains in my memory as the best . . . Other machines were faster, stronger, had better climb or vision; but none was so friendly as the Tripe. . . It was so well balanced that it would fly hands off on the tail-trimmer, which other aircraft boasted they could do, but didn't. It could do more than this: set the engine at three-quarter throttle and wind the tail well back and the Tripe would loop indefinitely. I once did 21 loops in a row!"

[Guest B. Bandy RFC]

I guess the rudder stuff on the E3 also partly explains why it and other early planes would have been so hard to fly, especially in combat. I wonder if fixed rudders can be simulated in FE using say flaps or lift devices (as rudders)? Just some thoughts.

 

Peter,

I do not know what variable it is in the FM, but I can remember some of the early 3rd party flight models (one of Tex's early Nieuport FMs comes to mind as prone to skidding) having handling characteristics like how a one-piece rudder is described in the article, ie, the nose tended to stay where it was pointed (skidding) rather than having a tendency to return to the vector of motion with a rudder-fin combo. So, there may be a way to model it already rather than substitute a flap for a rudder, but that is interesting lateral thinking...

 

Airplanes with one-piece rudders also include the DR1, so it would be nice to figure it out, but it may not be a popular characteristic though historically accurate. Werner Voss' last action against the SE5's of 56 and 60 squadron describes him literally spinning his DR1 around in a controlled slip turn (see link) to get off snap shots, which now makes sense (rather than an exaggeration...) if the one-piece rudder caused handling as described in the article.

 

What do you think?

 

PS: Also, a quick comment, I found myself trying to outrun several DR1's in an SE5 the other day, and they were definitely keeping up with me at about 110 at tree top. Either the SE5 is currently underpowered, or the DR1 is a bit too fast.

Edited August 17, 2008 by B. Bandy RFC

[+peter01 2]

Hi Bucky,

 

"...if the one-piece rudder caused handling as described in the article"

 

Yes, thats all very interesting, and didn't now that. Food for thought.

 

I think Charles did the first FM for FE that had a flat turn, maybe the Tripe from memory. I used this in some pre-EP FMs too. Tho it works in the EP FMs as well, it has far more of a downside in terms of overall feel of the plane (everything effects everything in these FMs!). I might look at it again, its a good idea.

 

I'm guessing you are using my Se5a FM? You should be able to easily to reach/maintain a speed of around 125mph - its pretty stable, easy to keep level. If you are using TKs not sure, some of his seem to have higher/lower top speeds. The Dr1 is a bit too fast, but theres a lot of different views on this. My guess is that'd it be lucky to be faster than 103 mph. What do you think?

 

Cheers

Edited August 19, 2008 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

IMHO, if those characteristics of the rudder could be added (another alternative FM....or 10 ) that would be a nice.

 

I also had Emil's Nieuport 28 doing flat turns with the original FE. It does help with snap shots. :yes:

 

Warning! I'm getting on the soapbox again. I've said it before and I'll say it again, rudder control and its influence on the flight characteristics of these planes shouldn't be underestimated. JMHO of course. I'm not a real expert on WWI aircraft nor an aerodynamics engineer....I just play one on the internet.