Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Olham

Something about the DM I don't understand

Recommended Posts

When I'm flying the Albatros D.III and D.V, I often eliminate altitude by taking the throttle back,

banking hard, and falling sidewards. I hardly ever get stress messages that way.

I can even dive pretty steeply - as long as I take back throttle, it doesn't stress the craft much.

 

Now I tried to follow the ace Nungesser in an Albatros D.Va, performing all the same way.

But whatever I tried - I got yellow stress messages all the time, and finally, the whole right

lower wing came off.

The Albatros D.V and D.Va had a strengthening strut at the V-strut.

So, why should an Albatros D.Va break so much easier than a D.III ? That can't be right?

(And right now, I am NOT using a third party DM mod, cause I had a complete re-install).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an FM issue rather than a DM issue, Olham. More specifically, it has to do with the maximum positive and negative G-forces modeled for the Albatross. As I recall, in HiTR, the Albs have very low g-ratings--only the Nieuports have a lower rating, I believe. So, it's possible your wing exceeded either the positive or negative maximum g-forces set for your Alb DV.

 

I have corrected this in my own personal FM for the Albatross and made it possible for the Alb to sustain wing damage in a sustained dive instead. Even though I have adjusted this, it is still very difficult to break an Alb wing during a sustained dive--too difficult in fact. This is perhaps why the devs left the Albs as they are. Perhaps they were torn between letting the Albs unrealistically break wings during a turn and never in a dive, versus having the Albs never breaking wings in either a turn or a dive--also unrealistic. Indeed, all of the aircraft have this problem. They can all dive at terrifically high speeds and not shed a wing, but are much more likely to lose a wing in a high g manuever. Unfortunately, I think this is a limitation of the CFS3 engine rather than something the devs chose to do.

 

In short, either myself or someone else can adjust this, but the solution will probably never be entirely satisfactory. It's also a lot of work to do on each plane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HPW, I was NOT talking about ALL Albatros here, but about the D.Va specificly.

The D.III and the D.V are NOT like that - I have flown them before.

The D.Va breaks up easier - which it shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks, HPW. To make sure, I didn't just have a rotten craft. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[size="2"][b]Aircraft[/b][/size][size="2"][b]RampWeight[/b][/size][size="2"][b]G air[/b][/size][b][size="2"]Alb D II[/size][/b][size="2"]1485.0[/size][size="2"]3.28[/size][b][size="2"]Alb D III early[/size][/b][size="2"]1904.0[/size][size="2"]3.06[/size][b][size="2"]Alb D III late[/size][/b][size="2"]1904.0[/size][size="2"]3.06[/size][b][size="2"]Alb D III OAW[/size][/b][size="2"]1904.0[/size][size="2"]3.06[/size][b][size="2"]Alb DV[/size][/b][size="2"]1919.0[/size][size="2"]3.06[/size][b][size="2"]Alb DV later[/size][/b][size="2"]1919.0[/size][size="2"]3.06[/size][b][size="2"]Alb Dva[/size][/b][size="2"]2000.0[/size][size="2"]3.17[/size][b][size="2"]Alb Dva 200[/size][/b][size="2"]2062.0[/size][size="2"]3.17[/size]

 

Well, that went well! Arggghh!

Edited by Herr Prop-Wasche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft Ramp Weight G Limit

DII 1485 3.28

DIII late 1904 3.06

DV 1919 3.06

DVa 2000 3.17

DVa 200 2062 3.17

A little easier to read, but not much. As you can see, the g-limit for the DVa is a little higher than the DIII and DV, but it also weighs more. I would guess that the extra weight is one reason for your troubles with the DVa.

As a comparison, the N11 weighs only 1034 lbs. and has a g-limit of 2.95.

Edited by Herr Prop-Wasche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that might explain it then. So, despite the inforcement, the wing may break earlier due to more fuselage weight.

Seems to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hihi - no, UncleAl, those additional stiffeners are just little rod in front bottom of the V-strut.

They were supposed to prevent the lower wing, which had only one main spar, from fluttering.

As early as with the D.III, Manfred von Richthofen had let his mechanics attach such struts.

But they did only help a little bit - you could still not dive steeply in that craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the engineers didn't really understand the problem was the twisting of the V-strut, rather than a weakness in the spar itself. Therefore, all Albs after the DII continued to have wing shedding problems throughout the whole war.

 

Olham, if you had your choice, would you prefer an Alb that is modeled in the sim to lose its wing in high-g maneuvers, as it is now; or only in a high-speed dives but only very, very rarely (due to game engine limitations)? Another alternative would be to limit its dive speed so that you can never exceed a speed that would surely cause it to lose a wing in the real war--but then the plane loses some of its real-life performance--a good diver, with the tiny little problem of occasionally losing its wing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to attempt to deal with these structural problems is to use energy tactics as much as possible when flying the Alb. Try to maintain altitude and don't go turning after opponents for too long. The OFF Albs handle diving quite well, so that's what you should use more than turning. It might work, or not. Unfortunately I'm no Alb expert. The Albs do lack some power compared to the best energy fighters.

 

Or try flying the Pfalz. A pretty fighter with no structural problems at all. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HPW, I don't know what you can do, but the Albatros should IMHO be more like this:

 

- in a steep dive, the lower wings would warp so much, that the part outside the V-strut might break off, if you don't stop it.

In a longer steep dive, it must happen; maybe the whole wing would even come off.

 

- high G-turns should not be a problem IMHO, until there is really a strong G-effect on the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olham, you may be in luck!

 

With further experimentation, I have been able to create an Alb FM that will fly tight turns without losing a wing, but which suffers structural problems if dived for too long at relatively high speed. However, I need people who are willing to test this in QC because creating a campaign FM requires that each FM change must be made individually to all 11 variants of each scout.

 

I won't tell you how far or how fast you can dive before losing a wing, but I suggest you switch warning labels back on temporarily until you get a feel for how far you can stress the aircraft--much like pilot's in WWI had to do!

 

Please respond in this thread if anyone wants to try my QC version of the Alb_DIII_early. I will send two files to you in a zip file. Simply replace the aircraft.cfg file and the Alb_DIII_early_QC1.air file with the files in the zip and you should be good to go! Don't forget to back up the originals, first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this week, HPW - I will have too much to do, work & privately, and want to fly at least a little bit in my campaign.

There must be other Albatros pilots around?

 

Aaaaaalbatros!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaalbatros!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff there over at the Aerodrome, Pips. Thanks a lot for asking there!

 

Here's what I condensed from the "professional" answers:

 

1. The Albatros did not have more wing failures at high G than other aircraft of the time

 

2. The Albatros D.III showed wing tip failures only at prolongued dives with full throttle.

Idflieg released a warning, that the pilots should not perform such diving for 1000 Meter or more.

 

3. Wing root problems (plus overall structural problems) occured with the light-built D.V

The wing tip problem first still remained with this type.

 

Quote Dan San-Abbott:

With the Alb.D.V project, Albatros engineers re-designed the Alb.D.III lightening the frame work

to to reduce the empty weight in order to improve performance, and aerodynamic improvement

Albatros in streamling the fuselage to reduce drag to further improve the performance. However,

the engineers did not correct the lower wing rotational problem, and failures still occured.

With the over lightened Alb.D.V frame work, other structural problems arose with the fuselage.

Again Albatros re-designed the Alb.D.V, re-strenghening the entire airframe and with the re-design

fuselage added and attachment fitting on the fuselage to the lower wing leading edge and with

the short bracing strut at the base of the V interplane strut, resolved the lower wing rotation problem.

 

... ...

Idfleig cautioned pilots not to dive more than 1000 meters, ( if my memory serves me correctly.

It was only when the Alb.D.III or Alb.D.V would dive at full throttle where the airspeed increased

sufficiently to cause the center of pressure to move back and caused the rotation of the lower

wing about the spar attachment. This could not be accomplished in level or turning flight.

This same thing occured with the S.E.5 with the high raked wing tips. The Royal Aircraft Factory

engineers resolved the problem on the S.E.5 by decreasing the rake of

the wing tips by reducing the span from 27"11" to 26' 7 1/2 ". The S.E.5a could be dove to about

250 mph, at which time terminal velocity attained, and where thrust equals drag.

Blue skies Pips,

Dan-San

 

 

4. The Albatros D.Va was again re-designed and changed at many points.

The wing tip failure as well as the wing root failures were eliminated here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow,great reading. Thanks for the post, Pips.

 

I can take this information and work on some revised FM's for the Alb series. I have to caution, however, that the FM for each plane won't be perfect, but they should perform a little more as they did in real life. Perhaps I should call the mod an "alternative interpretation" of the FM rather than a replacement FM. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..