spinning top in a camel

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

I just lost my favorite pilot (again) trying to take out a flight of two seaters. Flying a sop. camel, I dove under pulled up and fired as loong a burst as I could before the plane got his gunner into firing position. Got him smoking after a while, but was shot up pretty good, then I go into a crazy spin, like a top:

tail down, wings and prop up, spinning clockwise.

I tried everything to recover but couldnt: cut gas, cut engine, restart engine, full gas, full rudder both ways.

Is there any way out of a spin like this?

 

This isnt the first time I've spun like that in a camel...it happens now and then, but I never recover.

[Winston DoRight 3]

IMHO the OFF realistic flight model for the Camel seems to be a great joke. It is well known that this plane was hard to fly in it's day, but I think the devs went overboard in the stall/spin characteristics just to try and model it that way.

[Check Six 2]

Broadside,

 

All I know is that in a spin, you should centralise your controls to try to regain speed, and then use "opposite side" rudder to counter the spin ie if you are spinning counter clockwise (to the left) you apply right rudder to counteract it, and vice versa.

 

I'm uncertain how this might apply in a tail down spin. I'd certainly try every trick in the book as you seem to have done to get my nose down (WHERE the hell do I get this book!? I'm guessing the closest thing will be Homeboy's guide to OFF aircraft if and when his nearly severed digit recovers, and he's able to fly again).

 

(Get well soon Mark).

 

I have had similar results with the Camel. I'm not sure if I can handle her, she's a hard mistress to please. I have gone into an uncontrollable spin in a Camel every time I tried to fight in her. Flying is ok, as long as you think before you turn about the gyroscopic eccentricities. Combat, where you'll instinctively attempt a manoeuvre that you're incapable of performing in that craft...that's another thing.

 

I wonder if the AI knows of these "eccentricities" and performs manoeuvres whilst being pursued by a camel that they know the camel cannot match (like a quick climbing turn to the left...as I understand it, you turn left on a camel, and you'll lose altitude, turn right, and you'll gain it). I know that the Luftwaffe used tactics of flight envelope inabilites to counter the Spitfire in their Messerschmits. As the BF109 has fuel injection, and the Spitfire had carburettors, the BF109's were able to shake off a Spitfire or Hurricane by putting the stick forward and going into a negative G dive. The following Spitfire would cough and splutter at the lack of fuel getting to the cylinders due to it being tossed upwards in their carbys from the G forces of this manoeuvre, and that might mean 1 second or 2 seconds where they have lost slight power, and might mean life or death for the Luftwaffe pilot. The Spitfire could, of course, roll inverted and pull hard on the stick to perform much the same manoeuvre, but it again gives a slight advantage to the pursued BF109.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Check Six

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

I actually do quite well in the camel, and this particular spin is the only one that I cant manoever out of. I spin every other mission, but am able to escape it.

And I get a lot of kills in this rig, so I like flying it (tho I'm tired of the 28th squadron...gotta find another that uses the camel.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the devs have to say about the camel....

[Check Six 2]

I actually do quite well in the camel, and this particular spin is the only one that I cant manoever out of. I spin every other mission, but am able to escape it.

And I get a lot of kills in this rig, so I like flying it (tho I'm tired of the 28th squadron...gotta find another that uses the camel.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the devs have to say about the camel....

 

Some good RNAS squadrons flew the Camel. Most of the Sopwith family of aircraft are used in RNAS 8, from 1 1/2 Strutter through to Pups, and Camels (no Snipes...YET [hint, hint devs]) and you'll fly with such greats as R A Little, S J Goble, R J O Compston, C D Booker, R R Soar. Great to watch those guys in action, or to call on them for help if needed.

 

Do you have M$ FSX? There is a lessons page in there where a flight instructor will talk you through aerobatic manoeuvres, and that might give you an insight in how to avoid the stall and spin performing this manoeuvre, or how to recover once it's initiated. You're not in a camel of course, more a Pitts Special or some other aerobatic specialist, and you can view a "replay" of your flight with three dimensional views that show you how your loop was not even CLOSE to a circle etc, and explain the reasons why, and how to perform it successfully. That might help.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Check Six

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

Thanks Steve, I'll try those squads.

I dont have FSX, OFF and a WW1 sim that shall not be named is all I own as far as flight sims, tho il-2 is on it's way (probably wont play it a lot, just some, and will check out canvas..er..., another ww1 sim that shall not be named and likely will only be for mp).

 

I'm hoping for a record function someday...ala RB and RB2

 

You might know this: why didnt the brits/us/french paint their planes like the germans did? Most of the skins for the allies are boring...in fact havent found an interesting one yet.

[+Winder 32]

I just lost my favorite pilot (again) trying to take out a flight of two seaters. Flying a sop. camel, I dove under pulled up and fired as loong a burst as I could before the plane got his gunner into firing position. Got him smoking after a while, but was shot up pretty good, then I go into a crazy spin, like a top:

tail down, wings and prop up, spinning clockwise.

I tried everything to recover but couldnt: cut gas, cut engine, restart engine, full gas, full rudder both ways.

Is there any way out of a spin like this?

 

This isnt the first time I've spun like that in a camel...it happens now and then, but I never recover.

 

Its easy to recover if you use the standard procedure:

 

1) You must chop the throttle.

 

2) Apply opposite aileron and rudder and HOLD it do not oscillate it every few seconds.

 

You will exit the spin after about two to three turns - if you have no height .... well thats it.

 

Sometimes on chopping the throttle the engine may die (rotary) and you may need to restart - exhilarating experience.

 

 

Winston - I will get to look at MP as promised - no need to come across so negative all the time after all there is always ROF as an alternative... so life is good?

 

 

WM

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Winder, you beat me to the punch Sir. I was going to offer the same answer to BuB's dilemma. I have flown the Camel a great deal in this sim, and it is by far my favorite mount. Once it's idiosyncrasies are sorted out it is unbeatable. Winston, I don't agree Sir that the Camel has been made too hard to fly by the OFF devs. I believe it has been made far too easy to fly by every other WW1 flight sim. All reports I have read, (including a couple of the crash reports written by survivors), indicate the Camel was unbelievably twitchy to fly, and could and would stall out and spin in a heartbeat if you did the wrong thing, and generally speaking going right in any hurried fashion at all is definitely the wrong thing. A fair amount of left rudder is required all the time as well as forward stick pressure to keep it flying level and true, or at least as true as the hinky little beast can be. But it is this inherent instability that makes it such a great knife fighter. I love it.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Check Six 2]

 

 

 

Winder,

 

HOLD the rudder??? OK, that's not what I've been doing in any stall. I was of the opinion that you swap it over if, say for instance, you are in a "falling leaf" type of situation where you oscillate from spinning one way then the other. Interesting. Hopefully, I'll never have to use it (I know I'll be using it soon - sigh).

 

Broadside,

 

I don't know the answer to that. I'm guessing it individualised the aircraft, and therefore was not "uniform" and therefore, not "service-like". We all know how the Germans respected and promoted their Aces (in the media I mean), and allowed them some measure of slack, and hence the ability to individualise one's aircraft...hell, they even allowed them to use those new-fangled parachute things. Just not cricket, wot? I heard somewhere (it may be just a rumour or a story) that Richthofen was ordered to paint his Jasta's aircraft "different colours" (meaning I guess to camoflage them in browns and greens etc), and he took it to the extreme.

 

I understand the reasoning behind the (dare I say it?) GAILY coloured aircraft (OK guys...get off my back. Gay meant something different way back then). Easy to recognise who shot down who, who saved your ass, who to look at for signals/directions etc. Erich Hartmann, the highest scoring ace of all time, painted a black tulip design on the nose of his Messerschmitt, and eventually, the Russians would understandably avoid this aircraft at all costs. This prompted him to lend it to a rookie every now and then. This may save the rookie's life, and allow Hartmann further opportunities to add to his VERY impressive tally (352 aircraft over a year and a half for a 22 yo...not a bad effort).

 

There were of course, instances of aircraft being named (Little named his "Blymp" after the nickname he gave his son, and he had previously flown "Maud" [or was it "Lady Maud"?]). Collishaw's flight were named as well, but that's hardly what you're asking here. Maybe shredward knows.

 

There was an Australian (Les Holden) who flew an all-red SE5a...(see above - hope Cam doesn't mind me posting that here)

 

"Captain L.H. Holden was a fighting instructor for No.6 Training Squadron Australian Flying Corps. The fighting instructors conducted dogfights against the cadets so they had training in the modern fighting tactics. The instructors found it tiring, as cadets are less predictable than the experienced German pilots they faced on the Western Front - the instructors were constantly in danger of being flown into. As a result they painted their aircraft bright colours so they could be easily seen."

 

Australian Flying Corps highest scoring Ace, A H Cobby had a large cariacature of Charlie Chaplin on the side of his aircraft.

 

Collishaw's flight flew all black tripes. I can't think of any more instances off hand.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Check Six

[+Winder 32]

 

 

Winder,

 

HOLD the rudder??? OK, that's not what I've been doing in any stall. I was of the opinion that you swap it over if, say for instance, you are in a "falling leaf" type of situation where you oscillate from spinning one way then the other. Interesting. Hopefully, I'll never have to use it (I know I'll be using it soon - sigh).

 

Broadside,

 

I don't know the answer to that. I'm guessing it individualised the aircraft, and therefore was not "uniform" and therefore, not "service-like". We all know how the Germans respected and promoted their Aces (in the media I mean), and allowed them some measure of slack, and hence the ability to individualise one's aircraft...hell, they even allowed them to use those new-fangled parachute things. Just not cricket, wot? I heard somewhere (it may be just a rumour or a story) that Richthofen was ordered to paint his Jasta's aircraft "different colours" (meaning I guess to camoflage them in browns and greens etc), and he took it to the extreme.

 

I understand the reasoning behind the (dare I say it?) GAILY coloured aircraft (OK guys...get off my back. Gay meant something different way back then). Easy to recognise who shot down who, who saved your ass, who to look at for signals/directions etc. Erich Hartmann, the highest scoring ace of all time, painted a black tulip design on the nose of his Messerschmitt, and eventually, the Russians would understandably avoid this aircraft at all costs. This prompted him to lend it to a rookie every now and then. This may save the rookie's life, and allow Hartmann further opportunities to add to his VERY impressive tally (352 aircraft over a year and a half for a 22 yo...not a bad effort).

 

There were of course, instances of aircraft being named (Little named his "Blymp" after the nickname he gave his son, and he had previously flown "Maud" [or was it "Lady Maud"?]). Collishaw's flight were named as well, but that's hardly what you're asking here. Maybe shredward knows.

 

There was an Australian (Les Holden) who flew an all-red SE5a...(see above - hope Cam doesn't mind me posting that here)

 

"Captain L.H. Holden was a fighting instructor for No.6 Training Squadron Australian Flying Corps. The fighting instructors conducted dogfights against the cadets so they had training in the modern fighting tactics. The instructors found it tiring, as cadets are less predictable than the experienced German pilots they faced on the Western Front - the instructors were constantly in danger of being flown into. As a result they painted their aircraft bright colours so they could be easily seen."

 

Australian Flying Corps highest scoring Ace, A H Cobby had a large cariacature of Charlie Chaplin on the side of his aircraft.

 

Collishaw's flight flew all black tripes. I can't think of any more instances off hand.

 

 

Hold the rudder to opposite direction of spin - do not frantically move it from one side to the other if it does not respond immediately (many people do just this) - keep cool...

If spin direction does change then of course you have to change direction... the trick is to hold rudder to opposite direction of spin - practice it take the Camel up and give it a go.

 

HTH

 

 

WM

[Olham 164]

So, some find her simulated too hard in some aspects, while others found her too easy to fly.

In a tail-down spin, use of ailerons should help against the spin.

The Camel killed many pilots through her unpredictable torque/steering reactions.

So when you die in her - you're not alone.

[Bullethead 12]

Quite a few planes in OFF do a tail-low, nose-high spin. Almost all the others will still fall out of the sky vertically tail-low, nose-high, even if they don't spin while doing it. Prior to the superpatch, the Spad XIII was the easiest to make spin this way, but that might now have changed--haven't had time to check.

 

The cause of this seems to be a "hole" in the flight model where a lot of the normal aerodynamic forces suddenly disappear. For instance, despite the plane falling vertically and accelerating due to gravity, the wind coming up from below appears to have no effect, not even to weathervane the plane into a nose-down attitude. My theory here is that because you're falling tail-low, you're effectively going in reverse, and the FM just doesn't know how to deal with that--airplanes usually don't move backwards. Anyway, aileron and rudder are pretty much useless, but fortunately the elevators still work OK, although at reduced efficiency. You enter this "hole" in the flight model when you're very, very slow in a slightly nose-high attitude. If you enter a spin just before falling into the "hole", the spin will continue, apparently under your angular momentum, and seemingly ignoring the way the wind is blowing by your plane up from under your tail.

 

This all sounds pretty bad, but it's actually fairly easy to get out of. All you have to do is get out of the "hole". Once you do that, your plane suddenly assumes a proper attitude and your controls start to work again. And the key attribute for being in the "hole" is having your nose high.

 

Therefore, your FIRST priority MUST be to get the nose down. Once you do that, things go back to normal. If you're spinning, just ignore that for the moment.

 

So, #1, apply full power and full DOWN elevator. The more power you use, the more elevator authority you have. Again, this points to a "hole" in the FM, because it's like the only wind blowing by your elevator is coming from your prop. If the wind coming up from below was being considered, down elevator should actually make your nose go higher because you're moving in reverse. But trust me, DOWN elevator is what works here.

 

Once you get the nose below the horizon, you're home free. The FM starts working again, and the spin usually stops automatically. What appears to happen is that all your reverse airspeed which you gained while accelerating downwards under gravity tail-low, was all ignored by the FM. But once the nose is down, this suddenly switches to being regular forward airspeed, which the FM knows how to handle. Odds are, by the time you get the nose down, your vertical speed will be well above your stall speed. This stops the spin because 1 wing has to be stalled for a spin to continue. If for some reason you're still spinning at this point, the usual opposite control routine works, because suddenly the aileron and rudder are functional again.

 

It's a very abrupt transition from falling helplessly tail-first to flying and maneuvering normally in a forward direction. You'll see 0 airspeed and your aileron and rudder are useless, and then BOOM, you're doing 60 knots with full control like it never happened.

 

Once you get the hang of getting the nose down quickly, you'll find that you lose only a few dozen feet of altitude in one of these tail-low falls. And because you can get out of them easily and with no lingering ill effects, you'll be tempted to exploit the "hole" in the FM to your advantage. No pursuer can follow you through this process, and you can switch direction very quickly doing this to attack somebody else or turn the tables on your pursuer. I don't recommend doing this, however, because IMHO it's cheating (and don't get me started on folks in MMOFS games exploiting similar FM "holes" in other games). So when I fly, I try hard to avoid getting into this situation and if it does happen, I try to disengage from the fight so as not to "cheat".

 

Unfortuantely, the AI never seems to get the hang of recoverying from a tail-first fall. I've seen dozens of Albatri stall at 500-1000 feet and fall straight down without spinning, all the while with their noses pointed up about 30-45^. They just fall faster and faster, accelerating under gravity, but with apparently zero aerodynamics involved.

[+Winder 32]

Quite a few planes in OFF do a tail-low, nose-high spin. Almost all the others will still fall out of the sky vertically tail-low, nose-high, even if they don't spin while doing it. Prior to the superpatch, the Spad XIII was the easiest to make spin this way, but that might now have changed--haven't had time to check.

 

The cause of this seems to be a "hole" in the flight model where a lot of the normal aerodynamic forces suddenly disappear. For instance, despite the plane falling vertically and accelerating due to gravity, the wind coming up from below appears to have no effect, not even to weathervane the plane into a nose-down attitude. My theory here is that because you're falling tail-low, you're effectively going in reverse, and the FM just doesn't know how to deal with that--airplanes usually don't move backwards. Anyway, aileron and rudder are pretty much useless, but fortunately the elevators still work OK, although at reduced efficiency. You enter this "hole" in the flight model when you're very, very slow in a slightly nose-high attitude. If you enter a spin just before falling into the "hole", the spin will continue, apparently under your angular momentum, and seemingly ignoring the way the wind is blowing by your plane up from under your tail.

 

This all sounds pretty bad, but it's actually fairly easy to get out of. All you have to do is get out of the "hole". Once you do that, your plane suddenly assumes a proper attitude and your controls start to work again. And the key attribute for being in the "hole" is having your nose high.

 

Therefore, your FIRST priority MUST be to get the nose down. Once you do that, things go back to normal. If you're spinning, just ignore that for the moment.

 

So, #1, apply full power and full DOWN elevator. The more power you use, the more elevator authority you have. Again, this points to a "hole" in the FM, because it's like the only wind blowing by your elevator is coming from your prop. If the wind coming up from below was being considered, down elevator should actually make your nose go higher because you're moving in reverse. But trust me, DOWN elevator is what works here.

 

Once you get the nose below the horizon, you're home free. The FM starts working again, and the spin usually stops automatically. What appears to happen is that all your reverse airspeed which you gained while accelerating downwards under gravity tail-low, was all ignored by the FM. But once the nose is down, this suddenly switches to being regular forward airspeed, which the FM knows how to handle. Odds are, by the time you get the nose down, your vertical speed will be well above your stall speed. This stops the spin because 1 wing has to be stalled for a spin to continue. If for some reason you're still spinning at this point, the usual opposite control routine works, because suddenly the aileron and rudder are functional again.

 

It's a very abrupt transition from falling helplessly tail-first to flying and maneuvering normally in a forward direction. You'll see 0 airspeed and your aileron and rudder are useless, and then BOOM, you're doing 60 knots with full control like it never happened.

 

Once you get the hang of getting the nose down quickly, you'll find that you lose only a few dozen feet of altitude in one of these tail-low falls. And because you can get out of them easily and with no lingering ill effects, you'll be tempted to exploit the "hole" in the FM to your advantage. No pursuer can follow you through this process, and you can switch direction very quickly doing this to attack somebody else or turn the tables on your pursuer. I don't recommend doing this, however, because IMHO it's cheating (and don't get me started on folks in MMOFS games exploiting similar FM "holes" in other games). So when I fly, I try hard to avoid getting into this situation and if it does happen, I try to disengage from the fight so as not to "cheat".

 

Unfortuantely, the AI never seems to get the hang of recoverying from a tail-first fall. I've seen dozens of Albatri stall at 500-1000 feet and fall straight down without spinning, all the while with their noses pointed up about 30-45^. They just fall faster and faster, accelerating under gravity, but with apparently zero aerodynamics involved.

 

 

Yes we are aware that the AI sometimes pull up too steeply and do not recover from a tail slide - whereas the player can.

It varies from craft to craft they are better in the craft in the later war years..

It was quite bad in the N11 but we have improved the AI handling of N11 recently and it was patched a few versions back

 

I don't believe there is a combat sim out there without AI foibles (Il-2 and yes I have ROF too) but we are working steadily on new AI code for P4.

 

But we believe OFF offers a good balance of play - Campaign, Graphics, FM, DM and AI for an immersive WW1 experience and that is and will remain our goal - balance.

Perfect? ....not possible yet.... we are playing on a PC with finite GPU and CPU.

 

WM

[Check Six 2]

Winder,

 

You got me all wrong in the first place. I don't waggle my rudder madly back and forth, it is calculated and cool as I can be when I'm about to fly into the ground. I DO apply opposite rudder only, and not left, right, left, right. I only swap them over when your rotational direction alters. I find the Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter a good example of this. If you're climbing as hard as you can in her, keeping her just above stall speed, when she does go, she will wallow to the left, then right, then left etc until her speed comes up again. I apply opposite rudder each cycle, and the amount that she yaws left and right gradually lessens, and her speed increases, and you're OK.

 

I MUST now most humbly apologise for any pilots I have killed (from this forum), as I did inadvertently and quite mistakenly announce to all and sundry that you apply "same side" rudder to counteract a spin. This is clearly wrong, and opposite rudder must be applied of course. I hope no poor bugger died because of my failure to proof read my post correctly. If so, I apologise. It is now corrected in my original post.

 

uncleal,

 

If you had read the thread, you'd find out that Les Holden did not fly an all red SE5a to "pretend" he was as good as the Rittmeister, nor to mock him. He was a combat instructor, not a flight instructor. He taught rookies how to fight aerial combat and needed a brightly coloured aircraft so that he was more visible to the rookies, and to distinguish himself as an "enemy", and not part of their flight. It was primarily so they didn't crash into him.

 

"the instructors were constantly in danger of being flown into. As a result they painted their aircraft bright colours so they could be easily seen."

 

Why red you ask? Was it to "mock" Herr Rittmeister? I doubt it. All the paint around a British Aerodrome would be drab olives, greens and browns for camoflage of their aircraft and aerodrome buildings. The other paints available were red and blue (for the roundels). An all blue aircraft may not stand out well enough on a blue sky sorta day, so I guess red was a natural choice.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Check Six

[+Winder 32]

Winder,

 

You got me all wrong in the first place. I don't waggle my rudder madly back and forth, it is calculated and cool as I can be when I'm about to fly into the ground. I DO apply opposite rudder only, and not left, right, left, right. I only swap them over when your rotational direction alters. I find the Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter a good example of this. If you're climbing as hard as you can in her, keeping her just above stall speed, when she does go, she will wallow to the left, then right, then left etc until her speed comes up again. I apply opposite rudder each cycle, and the amount that she yaws left and right gradually lessens, and her speed increases, and you're OK.

 

uncleal,

 

If you had read the thread, you'd find out that Les Holden did not fly an all red SE5a to "pretend" he was as good as the Rittmeister, nor to mock him. He was a combat instructor, not a flight instructor. He taught rookies how to fight aerial combat and needed a brightly coloured aircraft so that he was more visible to the rookies, and to distinguish himself as an eenemy, and not part of their flight. It was primarily so they didn't crash into him.

 

My response was to the thread starter BuB so maybe just relax - if you know how to get out of a spin that's fine but consider that the thread starter BuB does not?

 

As usual YMMV but I am not trying to help you I am trying to help BuB.

 

WM

[Bullethead 12]

I don't believe there is a combat sim out there without AI foibles (Il-2 and yes I have ROF too) but we are working steadily on new AI code for P4.

 

I wasn't complaining about the AI. I mean, the AI has to be built with certain assumptions, and one of those undoubtedly is that the laws of flight mechanics always apply. Thus, when it finds itself in a regime where this isn't the case, it can't escape, but that's not its fault. The AI can only do what it knows how to do. A human, OTOH, is free to experiment and figure a way out of the problem. And a human with long experience of similar FM glitches in other games might even recognize the situation immediately and know exactly what to do.

 

This thread began with a guy asking how to recover from a nose-high spin in a Camel. The previous answers weren't correct, because they are standard, real life spin recovery techniques that often don't work in OFF when you're effectively flying backwards. This of course varies by plane--some don't seem to mind going slightly backwards, but some can really get stuck that way, one of which is the Camel. And besides, the thread began to diverge into whether or not the Camel's infamous flying characteristics were accurately depicted, which really wasn't on topic.

 

So, all I was doing was answering the guy's question on how to get out of a nose-high spin in OFF, in a plane that's prone to get stuck in one. Nose-high spins are physically impossible in real life, so real life techniques don't work. But to explain why nose-high spins happen in OFF, and why my recovery method works and others don't, I had to explain the differences between real life and OFF when planes are flying backwards. I only mentioned the AI to emphasize the point that when you're stuck nose-high, you're not in the real world anymore, so real world techniques often don't work. I'm sure everybody's seen that happen a number of times, so it seemed a good example to use. Sorry if I offended you.

 

Anyway, the real problem, IMHO, is that the FM doesn't do well when airplanes are going backwards. I'm sure you know all about this, and would have fixed it long ago if you could have. That's why I don't harp on it. But when somebody doesn't know what's happening to him in the game, he needs to be told about it. And it's something we all need to keep in mind when discussing whether or not specific planes are modeled correctly.

[+Winder 32]

I wasn't complaining about the AI. I mean, the AI has to be built with certain assumptions, and one of those undoubtedly is that the laws of flight mechanics always apply. Thus, when it finds itself in a regime where this isn't the case, it can't escape, but that's not its fault. The AI can only do what it knows how to do. A human, OTOH, is free to experiment and figure a way out of the problem. And a human with long experience of similar FM glitches in other games might even recognize the situation immediately and know exactly what to do.

 

This thread began with a guy asking how to recover from a nose-high spin in a Camel. The previous answers weren't correct, because they are standard, real life spin recovery techniques that often don't work in OFF when you're effectively flying backwards. This of course varies by plane--some don't seem to mind going slightly backwards, but some can really get stuck that way, one of which is the Camel. And besides, the thread began to diverge into whether or not the Camel's infamous flying characteristics were accurately depicted, which really wasn't on topic.

 

So, all I was doing was answering the guy's question on how to get out of a nose-high spin in OFF, in a plane that's prone to get stuck in one. Nose-high spins are physically impossible in real life, so real life techniques don't work. But to explain why nose-high spins happen in OFF, and why my recovery method works and others don't, I had to explain the differences between real life and OFF when planes are flying backwards. I only mentioned the AI to emphasize the point that when you're stuck nose-high, you're not in the real world anymore, so real world techniques often don't work. I'm sure everybody's seen that happen a number of times, so it seemed a good example to use. Sorry if I offended you.

 

Anyway, the real problem, IMHO, is that the FM doesn't do well when airplanes are going backwards. I'm sure you know all about this, and would have fixed it long ago if you could have. That's why I don't harp on it. But when somebody doesn't know what's happening to him in the game, he needs to be told about it. And it's something we all need to keep in mind when discussing whether or not specific planes are modeled correctly.

 

I hear you I just didn't read going backwards and spinning as the same although you are right he says tail down.

 

I am not offended but like to keep 'perspective' as we are trying to keep our heads above water with competition.

 

WM

[+Polovski 460]

The Camel is one of the better renditions of a Camel in any sim, it also had the most time spent on it. Of course being a sim, it is not real life no, and it's not perfect no, but pretty darn good when you apply yourself to fly it. There are glitches and issues in every single flight sim in the world apart maybe from a military sim running on supercomputer, and OFF is pretty darn good now. The Camel killed more of its pilots than the enemy did. Sometimes you can get into a tail spin best thing is not to get into one..

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

Bullethead, Winder, Steve, thanks for the responses. Very interesting. At first I was thinking there was no recovery from that spin.

I love flying the camel...it's fun and interesting and hard.

I'm racking up kills like crazy, not that it matters, since I cant seem to live more than 4 missions in the camel (I do much better in an alb, se5a).

 

I think I'll make an undying pilot named Eric Cartman and run a whole campaign with him in the camel so I can experience it all, and hone my skills with this plane.

 

Steve, very interesting read about colors. makes perfect sense, being that the brits were so claustrophobic about pilot singularity and 'team spirit'. I might just have to get out my paint program and make some skins of the camel and the se5a (both good looking planes, while most of the french/british planes were rather ugly imo, compared to the german planes). Maybe I'll fly with the american esc., since americans can get away with individuality a bit more.

 

uncleal, nice points about the german's colors. makes sense for that very reason.

 

Winder, as to the competition, I dont really see that there is any...OFF is far and away better than anything out there atm. Critics may spout the cfs3 engine as the killer of OFF, but seems to me from this latest patch, that OBD is making this engine do things it didnt know it could.

Often when on I see the forum headings at simHQ, I see a half dozen or more reading the OFF forums there, though of course there are 50 or 60 reading an unnamed and never to be identified ww1 sim . Still this shows the growing interest in this amazing sim OBD has created. I think it comes down to advertisement personally....

I'm waiting for a friend to get his mac up and running, and hope to buy him a copy of OFF soon. He enjoys the things in a sim that fill in the gaps (marching troops, a truck passing by--which he'll fire on regardless of whose side its on--etc), so he's really going to enjoy OFF. I guess there is competition in dollars spent, but that'll come (with some advertising)...

 

Thanks for all the great suggestions and help! Gotta try them out NOW.

[JimAttrill 24]

The Camel killed more of its pilots than the enemy did.

 

But the Camel shot down more enemy aircraft than any other allied plane. And still holds the record for the most aircraft shot down by one aircraft by one pilot, by Barker - I think it was 46. HE knew how to fly it.

 

So if the OFF Camel is hard to fly and turns like the devil - that's how it was.

 

Well done the developers.

[+Polovski 460]

Indeed JimAttrill, so that's why it is one of the finest of WW1- a vicious unforgiving beast to a new flyer but if you lived long enough to master it, you could turn its viciousness onto the enemy,

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Zactly right.

[Guest British_eh]

So, we have the spinning Camel, a twitchy sort of craft, on the edge, and as dangerous to the pilot, as it was to the enemy. 1798 deaths while flying the Camel. 385 of those from accidents, T/O and landing mostly from what I have read. 1294 enemy aircraft downed with what % as two seaters? So, at the end of the day almost a break even for the Camel.

 

The Dr.1 killed two because of faulty construction/ design, and then two more several monts later. Of course there were the "ground loop" incidents too, but all in all, the Dr. 1 even though twitchy in flight, was less of a threat to it's own pilot, than the Camel. Perhaps the Dr.1's 110 HP, ( it was fitted later with a 160 HP engine, but was no better in performance, thus not produced with such), vs. the Camel's 130 Hp / 140 HP Clergets, was an issue. Perhaps this extra torque was just over the top, and the nasty sife effects were far more evident than the torque issue with the Dr.1.

 

There is, to my current knowledge, scant litte on the actual flying characteristics of the Dr.1 From what I have read to date, spinning was not an issue, unlike the Camel. Similar to the Sopwith Tripe, it required very little forward speed to generate lift. Indeed I have seen the stall speed of a replica with the 110 HP copy of a LeRhone engine, to have a stall speed of 45 mph.

 

So, what may have been more of an epic battle between the Dr.1 and the Camel, was not so destined to happen due to the delay in production of the Dr.1 and the requirements for repairs/changes to be made.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

 

Edited August 10, 2009 by British_eh