HiTR new planes

[AROTH 0]

Hi all,

 

This is not a complaint of any type, but a curiosity on my part.

 

Having only flown the Fokker E.V, DH5, and N28 from HiTR so far, and not many times each, I was wondering if there were major noticeable differences between these machines and the older ones we are currently used to in OFF. (having learned the particular traits of them from our experiences)

 

My experience so far -

 

Fokker E.V - A pig to fly and bad visibility due the wing location. I am constantly stalling and can barely see or follow my targets even with Trackir. I get into one and feel like I am blindfolded and out of control for the most part. Haven't even hit any targets yet (can't keep the machine very stable or steady) and have either crashed or been shot down all flights. (True, I am not the best pilot - )

 

DH.5 - Surprisingly, from other comments I have heard, I have been able to put bullets into most everything I fire at, though, none of the enemy have been shot down. That view from the cockpit is indeed something that takes getting used to, but I seem to be able to follow and track targets without much trouble, just can't keep up with them.

 

N28 - Sort of in the middle on this one. The view is limited and that makes it harder to see and follow targets, but I can put bullets into targets half the time. Not quite as difficult to handle as the E.V, and not as docile as the DH.5.

 

These AI guys are still kicking my butt - although not quite as much as before - haha.

[SirMike1983 3]

The D.VIII/E.V in OFF is tricky, takes practice.

 

The N.28 is a well-balanced scout with decent capabilities all around. Without the ballooning wing construction, it's nice.

 

The N.24bis/N.24 are my favorites of the new group. It's basically an improved 17. A fun time for me is my N.24 against maybe 3 or 4 Albatross with the BHaH AI active. It feels good to work with wingmen and down enemy aircraft. But nothing tops a load of Albatross assuming it's over before it's begun and finding out the 24's bite is far worse than its bark.

[Duce Lewis 3]

I tend to fly 1 bird and try to get to know it well

N.28 was long awaited and I've flown her exclusively

Visibility is a challenge with the upper wing and hoodish windshcreen

She handles great if you keep her speed up ...but she bleeds speed fast

Surprisingly, acceleration is a problem too

With 160 HP, same as an Alb or DVII, and much lighter, you'd think she'd zip

[Olham 164]

Depending on what crates you fly mostly, you may have to change your flying style.

 

If someone is familiar with the Dr.1, the E.V should be easier for him to aim with,

and a bit trickier in turning.

Both, the E.V and the Nieuport 28, can either

- do a fast turn banked hard, using elevator and ailerons - but almost no rudder;

or

- do a soft turn with use of much or full rudder, but only banked max. 30/40°

 

For a quick change of direction, the N 28 can use the hammerhead (right word, Lou?),

where you pull up quite steep until you loose speed, and then give her full rudder

(find out, to which side works better), until she has turned round for 180° and goes

back down again in the opposite direction.

Haven't tried it on the E.V yet, but I guess, she should also be able to use this.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Olham

[OvS 8]

Depending on what crates you fly mostly, you may have to change your flying style.

 

If someone is familiar with the Dr.1, the E.V should be easier for him to aim with,

and a bit trickier in turning.

Both, the E.V and the Nieuport 28, can either

- do a fast turn banked hard, using elevator and ailerons - but almost no rudder;

or

- do a soft turn with use of much or full rudder, but only banked max. 30/40°

 

For a quick change of direction, the N 28 can use the hammerhead (right word, Lou?),

where you pull up quite steep until you loose speed, and then give her full rudder

(find out, to which side works better), until she has turned round for 180° and goes

back down again in the opposite direction.

Haven't tried it on the E.V yet, but I guess, she should also be able to use this.

 

Great stuff Olham. :)

 

Yes, a Hammerhead is ok, but you can also say 'rudder turn', you just don't go vertical in the maneuver. It's more like a 45 deg AoA, then hit hard right or hard left rudder to make the turn.

 

The D.VII does this VERY nicely.

 

OvS

[Hasse Wind 46]

The E.V is a bit too nervous for me, just like the Dr.1. But as the Dreidecker is a real killer in the right hands, I imagine the E.V behaves equally well, if not better, if you know what you're doing.

 

Speaking of rudder turn, the D.VII is very good at it, just like OvS said. But the SPADs excel at that maneuver too, in fact it's one of the moves I do often when flying the S.XIII. With enough speed, you can dominate any situation in the SPAD, and choose whether to have a fight at all.

 

I suppose the N.28 we have in OFF performs somewhat better than the real plane, because the awful problems of its Gnome rotary engine can't be simulated in OFF. As far as I know, the problem with the engines was a more important reason for replacing the Nupes in American squadrons with SPADs than the occasional wing failures, which were fixed quite quickly in the end.

[shredward 12]

And that worked out so well

[zoomzoom 2]

The N-28 does a lovely evasive snap roll to the right as well. In fact, its saved my life more than once. All you do, (but wait till your enemy is closing fast so it will really throw them) Is hit full up elevator and full right rudder. As soon as she starts to spin to the right, just let go.....I mean it, let go of all controls.....if you time it right, she will right herself...all by herself, and you will fly away in the proper orientation, with your adversary overshooting you, and or very confused.

 

ZZ.

 

PS. This isn't in a steep dive, just regular turning or flying speeds. I haven't tried it at extreme speeds yet.....haven't had to it works so well.

Edited December 28, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Olham 164]

Although I'm not sure, if we are able to "confuse" the AI, it sounds good as a manoeuvre.

Did you find out yourself about the letting her go, or did you read it anywhere, Zoomzoom?

It sounds like a manoeuvre I must try with the Fokker E.V

[zoomzoom 2]

Well, by confuse, I mean, you will be out of thier line of fire. hehe

 

Um, as far as familiarity, the snap roll is a pretty standard maneuver. I have had a bit of pilot training (full size AC) and fly RC all the time, so its a good standard maneuver. The trick is to know what planes it works well with, and which its not as nice on..sometimes even dangerous as far as recovery. I simply put the N-28 through its paces, and this one panned out well. I was actually over correcting at first, countering the original spin as some planes need to come out of it well, till I found I was inducing an opposite and even more severe counter spin. This by the way is MOST realistic to some real life planes....great job DEvs on the flight characteristics....they are awesome....spot on. Anyway, since I saw I was over-correcting, classic error of real newbie pilots, I just played with the timing and "let her go" once it started, and it worked out fine. It is a matter of timing and feel, but try it a few times, you'll get the hang of it......and it might save your skin.

 

ZZ.

 

PS. Olham, be sure to use quick combat and pilot never dies when you try it on the EV. High wing parasols are nasty in spins due to all the weight high up in that top heavy wing....it can get nasty fast.

Edited December 28, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Duce Lewis 3]

I suppose the N.28 we have in OFF performs somewhat better than the real plane, because the awful problems of its Gnome rotary engine can't be simulated in OFF. As far as I know, the problem with the engines was a more important reason for replacing the Nupes in American squadrons with SPADs than the occasional wing failures, which were fixed quite quickly in the end.

I remember reading somewhere that the Gnome's problems were due to brass tubes that cracked and leaked

Would be scary fun if our rotaries would burst in spinning fireballs in OFF

Wikipedia has a nice write-up on the Gnome Monosoupape

Fairly uncoventional single valve design but it saved precious weight I presume

http://en.wikipedia....ome_Monosoupape

 

LeRhone is more conventional but has an interesting pushrod/rocker arm arrangement

Apparently the EV had a lot of trouble with their Oberursel versions

Lack of Caster Oil led to substituting inferior Voltol Oil

http://en.wikipedia....e_Rh%C3%B4ne_9R

[Olham 164]

Zoomzoom, it went fine the first try (fortunately - I had used my campaign pilot!).

Perhaps you need to correct a bit yourself, but it worked.

And I knew it would, somehow. Wouldn't dare it with a Camel though...

[Barkhorn1x 14]

Depending on what crates you fly mostly, you may have to change your flying style.

 

If someone is familiar with the Dr.1, the E.V should be easier for him to aim with,

and a bit trickier in turning.

Both, the E.V and the Nieuport 28, can either

- do a fast turn banked hard, using elevator and ailerons - but almost no rudder;

or

- do a soft turn with use of much or full rudder, but only banked max. 30/40°

 

For a quick change of direction, the N 28 can use the hammerhead (right word, Lou?),

where you pull up quite steep until you loose speed, and then give her full rudder

(find out, to which side works better), until she has turned round for 180° and goes

back down again in the opposite direction.

Haven't tried it on the E.V yet, but I guess, she should also be able to use this.

 

I agree w/ OvS - great stuff. As I am a horrible pilot, can you give me the same advice for the Albatross series and the Pfalz?

[zoomzoom 2]

"Zoomzoom, it went fine the first try (fortunately - I had used my campaign pilot!).

Perhaps you need to correct a bit yourself, but it worked.

And I knew it would, somehow. Wouldn't dare it with a Camel though... "

 

Exactly Olham, those are a bit too twitchy to do this reliably in combat......although, I'll bet with practice you could. It would likely take a very precise and cool handed pilot though.....and perfect reaction times and counter control. Hard things to keep in mind though when an enemy is pelting you from behind from out of the blue!!

 

ZZ.

Edited December 29, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Bullethead 12]

DH.5 - Surprisingly, from other comments I have heard, I have been able to put bullets into most everything I fire at, though, none of the enemy have been shot down. That view from the cockpit is indeed something that takes getting used to, but I seem to be able to follow and track targets without much trouble, just can't keep up with them.

 

The DH5 is the most weather-dependent plane I've encountered yet. On the plus side, however, this does show how OBD made the new HitR wind gusts vary with the general weather conditions .

 

On sunny, calm days, the DH5 is fairly well-behaved and almost enjoyable to fly around sight-seeing. It holds still enough that aiming the guns is no more difficult than in the "non-twitchy" planes. But the machine is so pathetically slow and lacking in maneuverability that you're not likely to get many firing opportunities.

 

When the sky is cloudy, however, turbulence increases and the DH5's bad habits come out. The worse the weather, the stronger and more frequent are the gusts, as you'd expect. Moderately crappy days (as in overcast with big but widely spaced low clouds and no precipitation) appear to have very frequent light-medium gusts with periodic strong ones. When the weather is worse than this, you get very frequent strong gusts. All very nice from the POV of meteorological realism. Problem is, the DH5 doesn't like gusts at all. It gets tossed around bigtime, like a leaf in a storm.

 

In the frequent light-medium gusts, the DH5 wobbles all over the sky, pitching and rolling about 10-30^ in all directions pretty much nonstop. This makes it practically impossible to aim at anything and you'll often get knocked into a spin while turning. However, you can still manage to head in the general direction you want to go, perhaps even climb a little, and (if you're lucky to catch a lull in the gusts during final approach) even land safely.

 

Strong gusts knock the DH5 about 45^ off-line, often in more than 1 direction at once. While this can happen in any direction (or combination of directions), the most common outcome is a hard left roll combined with sharp nose-down pitch. The sudden drop of the nose is enough to make the engine sputter from lack of fuel, thereby delaying recovery and resulting in the loss of several dozen feet of altitude. If such gusts only happen periodically, as on moderately crappy days, then you can deal with it, although it pretty much cancels out your ability to climb.

 

But on very crappy days, such gusts happen every few seconds and, more often than not, cause the nose-down and loss of power. On such days, the DH5 is literally unflyable in level flight, let alone trying to fight. The nose-down gusts are so frequent that the next one hits before you've regained all the altitude from last time, so your net progress is always downwards. If you're trying to fight, you reach the ground very, very quickly. So on such days, you should just abort the mission and land immediately, if you can .

 

I'm really at a loss to explain the DH5's pathetic flight performance in OFF. I mean, compare it to the DH2. Their gross weights were practically identical and they had the same motor. Their wings were the same size and shape, the only differences being the back-stagger and the bigger ailerons on the DH5. So all that's a wash and the DH5 was MUCH more streamlined. So you'd think the DH5 would have somewhat better performance than the DH2. But instead it's slower than a Fee.

 

I'm beginning to think the DH5 has some SEVERE excess drag in its flight model that it really shouldn't have. In OFF, it can't come close to reaching the speeds and altitudes my books say it could and it stops SO quickly when you put it on the ground. It's like it's dragging an open parachute along behind it. And such and invisible "drogue chute" would certainly explain why the DH5 is so badly affected by gusts.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Poor 24 Squadron. First they have to fly the DH2 far beyond its date of expiry, and then they get saddled with the DH5. Sounds like a plane I'm going to avoid in OFF.

[Rickitycrate 10]

I was just watching the Red Bull World Cup Air Races on tv. The wind was playing havoc with with the control of the planes and most of the pilots either did not complete the course our were penalized for clipping the pylons. Seeing this with these modern high powered machines helped me to appreciate the difficulty of bringing our guns to bear in OFF on windy days.

[Bullethead 12]

Sounds like a plane I'm going to avoid in OFF.

 

It's not a lot of fun, I agree, except for the morbid fascination of being able to escape unscathed from nasty crashes that would certainly kill you in any other plane.

 

But I'm thinking the OFF DH5 is far worse than it really was. Sure, we all know the DH5 was a disappointment in real life, but I think that has to be taken in the context of the times. It wasn't a big enough improvement on what it was intended to replace, especially when compared to the other new fighters of its day.

 

The thing is, though, the DH5 SHOULD be better than the DH2. Not much, but some. They had the same power, same weight, and same wing area, but the DH5 had far less drag. Thus, the DH5 should be a bit faster on the level and climb a bit better than the DH2. And this is exactly what my books say.

 

As for their relative maneuverability, I find nothing in books so I have to make inferrences. I would expect their sustained turn rates and turn radii to be nearly identical, given they have the same wingloading, but the DH5 should be able to sustain hard turns longer without as much altitude or speed loss, due to its lower drag. The DH5 would probably have a higher roll rate, due to bigger ailerons, but the DH2 would probably have faster pitch and yaw rates due to its lower moment of inertia in those axes.

 

So at the bottom line, the DH5 in real life seems to have been a minor improvement on the DH2. But that just wasn't good enough to cut it in mid-1917. Plus, it looked strange and got a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for killer spins, but the DH2 had that itself. Thus, nobody liked it.

 

I haven't flown the DH2 since HitR came out, so I can't say whether it's taken a huge performance hit from the excessive fuel load, nor how gusts affect it. It used to be a pretty nice little plane, though (except for the unrecoverable spins), so if it's now worse than the DH5, HitR must have REALLY pounded it. But there's precious little room between the DH5's performance and not getting off the ground at all, so I can't see that happening.

 

Has anybody flown the DH2 since HitR came out? How does it compare to the DH5 these days? OFF isn't working for me right now so I can't go look myself.

[Burning Beard 14]

I have flown the DH2 a bit since HiTR came out and it seems to be a little touchier than it was before, but it always seemed a little to stable for its reputation. Now it feels right. I flew it online last Sunday with the Vasco gang, using no tac, or labels and it made a very intense mission. I managed to pull out of a couple of spins on that mission but it was tense.

 

I have flown the DH5 very little and do not have an informed opinion for you. The biggest problem I had with it was the location of the top wing, it was really confusing looking for enemy aircraft. For some reason when I would see the leading edge of the top wing I would assume it was the trailing edge and really get turned around. I know that make no sense at all but that is how it felt.

 

Beard

[Bullethead 12]

I have flown the DH2 a bit since HiTR came out and it seems to be a little touchier than it was before, but it always seemed a little to stable for its reputation. Now it feels right. I flew it online last Sunday with the Vasco gang, using no tac, or labels and it made a very intense mission. I managed to pull out of a couple of spins on that mission but it was tense.

 

If you have a chance, could you please do some QC freeflight test hops in both planes using the HUD instruments? That way, you could really see which was faster and climbed better, and by how much. And also how much the DH2 has changed since HitR.

 

I have flown the DH5 very little and do not have an informed opinion for you. The biggest problem I had with it was the location of the top wing, it was really confusing looking for enemy aircraft. For some reason when I would see the leading edge of the top wing I would assume it was the trailing edge and really get turned around. I know that make no sense at all but that is how it felt.

 

Hehehe, I can see that happening. The DH5 is like a pusher with a tractor engine, as far as the views go.

[Burning Beard 14]

OK, I did it. The DH5 climbs a little faster and is a little faster on auto level. But the DH2 handles a lot better. If I were given the choice of the two I would take the DH2.

 

I could recover from a spin quite easily with both but preferred the DH2 where essentially all you have to do is let loose of the stick and throttle back and it will correct itself. This is under 2500' which was my test altitude. You have to be careful not to over correct which will cause you to lose wings or exacerbate the spin. Also the DH2 has the best sights of all the planes, they are just there in front of you, you dont have to move your head, hit F6 or anything, just line up and shoot.

 

The DH5 in its defense will dive like crazy and do a nice yo-yo, and is very stable if you dont try to do anything silly like extended climbing turns. I can see how it would be a nice ground assault ship if it had the DH2's flying cover.

 

Beard

[Bullethead 12]

OK, I did it. The DH5 climbs a little faster and is a little faster on auto level. But the DH2 handles a lot better. If I were given the choice of the two I would take the DH2.

 

Thanks for your efforts, but bad news indeed. The DH2 used to run and climb about like my books say, which is way better than what the DH5 does today. So if the DH2 is now slower than the DH5, it really took a hit in HitR. I can't see how it can get off the ground at all.

 

In my experience, the DH5 only does about 70 knots on the level at low altitude, instead of nearly 100 like the books say. It has a sustained ROC of about 400fpm for the 1st couple thousand feet, but then it disappears quite rapidly. The other day I tried as hard as I could, but I couldn't get over 6700 feet at all, and it took me 15 minutes to just to get there. On a calm, sunny day, I might add. As opposed to what the books say, which is a ceiling of about 16000 feet reached in about 30 minutes.

[+Polovski 440]

For the record DH5 is quoted in many places as 102 MPH max speed (not Knots). But that is at 10K.

Therefore at SL although it should be faster it cannot be faster if we believe those quotes (or SL speed would be quoted as the max speed ;)) so it could be incorrect stats, or some oddities that caused it to under perform at low alt. At 6500 there are quotes of 104 for the prototype which differed in performance to later versions anyway. btw in one test the Plywood version was 97 MPH @10k. not even 102, and that was tested with a lighter pilot, and less load than other tests so may have been even worse.

 

"Technical Details

The D.H.5 was a single seat fighter that first flew in combat in 1917. It was powered by a 110 hp (80 kW)

Le Rhone 9 cylinder rotary engine. This unit provided only 100 mph (160 km/H),"

 

"...the aircraft required a vast deal of

knowledge and experience to be able to handle effectively in a firefight and the

DH.5 was in operational service for no longer than 8 months on any front. By

1918, the DH.5 was no longer an option."

 

Jane's suggests performance cause was the back-stagger.

Speed at 10000ft. 102 m.p.h.

Speed at 15000ft. 89 m.p.h.

(other comments suggest performance was affected after weight was added to strengthen the fuselage).

 

Above 10k it was a dog.

 

It was normally restricted to 9,000ft in the 3rd group for obvious reasons (very poor altitide) lowest of a stagger -even Pups above LOL.

 

Several of the official tests were in the prototype which seemed to perform better, (and often wildly differing!) there are several climb charts and with the plywood covered fuselage (modelled in HitR) that do not show climb tests to 16K I suspect they gave up ;).

 

Anyway I will check it some when I have time. No need to keep hammering home it's not good.

 

It wasn't good, but maybe there's something not working right I can tweak.

[Bullethead 12]

For the record DH5 is quoted in many places as 102 MPH max speed (not Knots). But that is at 10K.

Therefore at SL it cannot be faster (or that would be the max speed ;)) so it could be incorrect stats, or some oddities that caused it to under perform at low alt.

at 6500 there are quotes of 104 for the prototype which differed in performacnce to later versions anyway. Plywood version was 97 MPH @10k.

 

You have the same speed stats I do, but here's the problem: the DH5 can't get anywhere near 10,000 feet to see how fast it goes there. It can't even get to 7000 feet. Now granted, in QC, you can start a flight at various altitudes, but if you start the DH5 on the ground, it won't climb to 10,000 feet, even on a calm, sunny day when there are no gusts knocking it down all the time.

 

The books I have say things like this for real climb performance:

• 6000 feet in 6.55 minutes
  
• 10000 feet in 12.25 minutes
  
• 15000 feet in 27.30 minutes
  
• ceiling 16000 feet
  

 

However, I find that the DH5's ceiling is about 6700 feet, reached in 10-15 minutes, depending on how gusty it is. So I'd say there's a big problem here. In the time it takes the OFF DH5 to reach 6700 feet, the real DH5 would be about twice as high with the ability to keep on going.

 

I also have trouble believing the DH5 was SO slow below 10000 feet, which is where it was reportedly at its best. I haven't been able to get it above about 80 knots, and that with doing low yoyos. Trimmed for level flight (difficult to judge due to its extreme gust sensitivity), it seems to average about 70 knots, which is a bit slower than the Fee. And it can't turn anywhere near as well, nor for as long, as a Fee.

 

Anyway I will check it some when I have time. No need to keep hammering home it's not good. It wasn't good, but maybe there's something not working right I can tweak.

 

I'm not expecting the DH5 to be a great plane. Everybody knows it sucked. But as I said above, I think its suckage has to be taken in the context of its times and the contemporary expectations of its pilots. And right now, or so it seems to me, the DH5 sucks rather worse than it should. Remember, I'm a Fee driver, and the Fee is by far a better plane in OFF right now than the DH5. But the paper stats I have say it should be otherwise.

[Duce Lewis 3]

I also have trouble believing the DH5 was SO slow below 10000 feet, which is where it was reportedly at its best. I haven't been able to get it above about 80 knots, and that with doing low yoyos. Trimmed for level flight (difficult to judge due to its extreme gust sensitivity), it seems to average about 70 knots, which is a bit slower than the Fee. And it can't turn anywhere near as well, nor for as long, as a Fee.

Bullet, have you tried testing the DH5 with Wind turned off?

Most crates performance deteriorates significantly with wind, and it always seems to be a headwind