Roland C.II

[Pips 5]

The more I fly this sim the more time I spend flying two-seaters. In campaign they are far more challenging to survive, and that's the aspect that appeals to me most. And one of my favourite aeroplanes is the Roland C.II.

 

By all accounts it was bit of a beast to fly, although in OFF it is more of a baby. Perhaps for Stage 4 it can be modelled more along the lines of this article:

 

Windsock Datafile 49 LFG Roland CII , P M Grosz

 

It was reported than in speed trials the Walfisch demonstraded a speed advantage of about 30 km/h (19mph) over contemporary two seaters.

 

The Roland C.II arrived at the Front in March 1916 and remained there until June 1917.'[...]

 

At the time the smallest two-seater in German service, the C.II by virtue of its high wing and power loading demonstrated excellent performance. In speed it was equal to the Nieuport 11 and Sopwith Pup single-seat fighters, making it a formidable opponent in the air. The C.II biplanes generally flew in unison because their high speed precluded operating with the slower Rumpler, Albatros and LVG C-types then at the Front.

 

The C.II was not suited for dog-fighting because the short, round fuselage disturbed the airflow over the tail surfaces reducing the control effectiveness. This particular shortcoming was not corrected until the last production batch (see Appendices). The C.II could not be held in a climbing turn and had a tendency to stall.

 

Better effect would have been achieved had the small wing gap (only 84,5% of chord) been increased to reduce the aerodynamic interference between the wings.

A serious problem that pilots soon discovered to their dismay was the limited downward visibility while landing [...]

 

Dipl-Ing Madelung of Idflieg wrote that, 'the landing problem was not discovered during the design or testing phase, but only after the type had reached the Front'. Hauptmann Hermann Kohl, Staffelfuhrer of Kampfstaffel 22, an experienced C.II flier, who with his pilot Leutnant Kalf destroyed the ammunition dump at Cerisy on the night of November 6/7 1916, recalled that, 'in our Walfisch we had poor visibility and every pilot was in a sweat about landing.' Another pilot wrote that, 'the Walfisch put much fear into the enemy and where it appeared the enemy sought safety in escape. In fact, the Walfisch was not a particularly flight-worthy machine. It was taken for granted that every pilot on his first flight would crash on landing.' Hauptmann Arthur Pfleger of Feldflieger-Abteilung 5b recalled that the Walfisch was fast and demonstrated a phenomenal rate of climb, but it was tricky to handle. Pfleger crashed twice during landing and other squadron members fared no better. Oberleutnant Maximilian von Cossel and his pilot Rudolf Windisch of Feldflieger-Abteilung 62 who flew a Roland C.II behind Russian lines to blow up a railway line on October 2 1916, reported that the Walfisch, 'was not liked by everybody because of its nose heaviness.'

 

About half-way through the third production batch [...] structural changes were made to improve the flight characteristics. [...] The aileron actuating controls were led through the upper wing giving a stiffer and more positive control response. It is believed that this modified version was designated the Roland C.IIa. [...] These modified aircraft began to reach the Front in the summer of 1916.

 

 

A final Roland C.lla version of which 40 were ordered in June 1916 [...]featured a large vertical tail of increased area to improve flight control, something that should have been discovered and corrected during the prototype flight trials. According to Professor Wilhelm Hoff, a member of the Idflieg technical staff, the Roland Walfisch had the first well-designed streamlined fuselage, but the ineffectiveness of the small vertical tail surfaces had been responsible for fostering a general (if erroneous) belief among German designers that rounded fuselages were to be avoided because of the concomitant poor control qualities. [...] since the Roland C.II was outdated and not suitable for heavier engines, it would be dropped from production

 

 

If the sweep of fire around the upper hemisphere was superb, the lower sector — blocked by the high fuselage and bottom wing — was a veritable blind spot, quickly taken advantage of by Allied pilots.

[...]

 

Throughout 1916, the Walfisch performed a valuable combat role, finding employment [...] in assignments where high speed provided an advantage [...] a superior aircraft in the spring of 1916, was , by early, 1917 only capable of lesser assignments. The average ceiling of 3,500 meters [...] made the CII unacceptable for long-range reconnaissance

Edited November 16, 2010 by Pips

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Pips, I've flown quite a bit in the Walfisch, and while I agree it seems a bit more forgiving than the real examples described in your quote all-in-all it's quite close to what it should be, again as per your quote. I enjoy flying the "beast" and find it a treat to fight in when going up against the N11's of the day. But then, I'm a B/R pilot at heart.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

The landing difficulties are definitely present in OFF. That wing configuration makes downward visibility simply awful.

 

I really hope the devs have time to look at some of the flight models for P4. Have you tried the R.E.8? In real life, it was hated by many pilots because it was prone to stalling badly and didn't behave nicely at all compared to its predecessor, the B.E.2, even though it was supposed to be an improvement. But in OFF, the R.E. flies beautifully, with no nasty characteristics at all.

 

I realize this complaining about FM's must annoy the devs, but its the prize they must pay for trying to make OFF as historically accurate as possible. And I certainly wouldn't complain if I didn't care a lot about the future of the sim.

[JFM 18]

I'd like to see the Walfisch be able to carry bombs.