Request: Youtube Videos of Combat Maneuvers [Archive]

gimpyguy

October 27th, 2008, 16:48

Kinda like a how-to film, sort of like a flying manual for WWI Birds.

Not trying to be a wise-guy, but around here they're very big on on-the-job training. Much the same way it was in 1917, the pilot got out of school, and into combat. He learned what to do, and what not to do
( if he lived long enough )
That 17 hour life expectancy, was with the on-the job-training.

Basically depending on your settings
Enemy MG's can hit You up to 1500 feet up

AA MG's 2000

AA Cannons, you can't fly away from them ever

Around 1915 your chances of NOT getting hit were pretty good, by 1918 they were pretty good at it.

As long as you follow these basic rules, your chances are as good as the next guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMZlrLVosA&feature=related

womenfly2

October 27th, 2008, 17:12

Hey Gimp, Even in FLYBOY's they gave them some training ... tat-a-tat-tat-tat! .... But then again, on the first mission they lost half the squadron.

WF2 :icon_lol:

Cameljockey

October 27th, 2008, 19:54

That's what they get for messin' with the DrIs!:icon_lol:

CJ

wehyam

October 28th, 2008, 08:33

WW1 Fighter Aircraft Combat Maneuvers (http://www.geocities.com/ww1fighters/media/maneuver.htm)

Cheers,
WF2
thanks for that
... I'm off to practice..

but what I need is a way of taking a replay of what I'm doing from the outside while I do it in the cockpit.. Phase III do come with an MSFSX/2004 instant replay?

wehyam

October 28th, 2008, 08:53

jaa

October 28th, 2008, 09:40

Thanks.

The Dicta Boelcke video I had seen before. Its very good for the overall plan towards combat.

The www.geocities.com/ww1fighters/media/maneuver.htm (http://www.geocities.com/ww1fighters/media/maneuver.htm) link is excellent. This was exactly what I was looking for. I did not know what I was meant to be doing with my joystick and this explains. (In a very basic sense its the ww1 equivalent to multi-button powerups you get in kung fu games.)

Thanks to everyone.

ZoomZoom

October 28th, 2008, 10:18

On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.

gimpyguy

October 28th, 2008, 10:50

Huge difference, between a Mustang with 1200 HP. And a Strutter with 130 HP. :ernae:

ZoomZoom

October 28th, 2008, 12:00

You have a keen grasp of the obvious, but even amongst period craft, which is all we are referring to here, I'm suggesting that the roll rate may need be a touch quicker. Perhaps not though, thats why I'm asking for the opinion of others. Part of the reason being is that biplane, and even more-so triplane types, usually have shorter spans than monoplanes, and thereby the roll rate is much quicker. Maybe its fine as-is and its just an "appearance thing" where they are really moving fast enough in real time, but just seem to be floaty hanging there in space on your screen with no point of reference. Just asking for frame of reference.

ZZ.

gimpyguy

October 28th, 2008, 13:45

Way Back in Phase 1, a survey was carried out, if 100mph over a measured course, FELT slow or fast. As I remember, the results were pretty dang close to 50/50.

Anytime you seek a definate point of referance, to something that no-longer exists. It'll be a 50/50 :kilroy:

ZoomZoom

October 28th, 2008, 13:48

Yeah, what you're saying is kinda where I ended up too.....its veeeeeery subjective.

ZZ.

Thanks for playing though. : )

Catfish

October 28th, 2008, 14:38

Hello,
discussing the flight model is always interesting - since i always flew with other pilots, and only heard stories of the handling of those older crates second-hand, it is certainly hard to tell how their real behaviour was.
So real pilots invited to discuss this ...

Following is only my opinion, and only subjective, so ... :kilroy:

The OFF team is at it for quite a long time, flightsim-wise, that is. Some of them already altered the flight model (fm) in RedBaron 2, and 3d, to a more "real" touch - what ever that is, in a simulator. Somehow i think the fm regarding gliding, turning and some aerodynamics in RedBaron is still more up to the real thing, but maybe i'm spoiled - and starts and landings in OFF are anyway far better than in RB.

What they did is to search old texts, listen to banter and hearsay, and tried to apply this to the planes in OFF. They used some typical characteristics (of e.g. the Camel being a beast in stalling, and spinning) of planes, and arranged it in a way that the planes differed from another following those handed-down properties - Albatros with its in-line engine flying straight and turning bad - in relation to a Nieuport - where again a N11 is more nimble that a N17 - and so on.

Changing one feature of a plane will change the overall relation to the other planes, so you would probably have to adjust the other fms of the other planes to keep the advantages and disadvantages of the planes relating to each other.
I wonder if someone understands what i'm trying to say :icon_lol:

That said i think some of the planes were "better", or at least more manoeuverable in reality, than they are in OFF.
A lot of planes of WW1 (even before the war) were able to fly loopings, barrel rolls, and upside down - yes indeed.

Let's take the Albatros for an example:
Its normal cruise pressure tank along with the Argus injector would allow flying upside down without causing the engine to conk out. The Albatros flown by Udet behaved like an aerobatic wonder, and even if Udet was a good pilot - try to fly simple loopings or just barrel rolls in an Albatros in OFF... all pilots who lived longer than a few days did it with this crate. The Albatros series would have been toast against a well-flown Nieuport in OFF, but it was not in reality).
The only reason for scoring in an Albatros against Nieuports or Camels is that the AI is virtually non-existant in phase 2. If the Albatros was so bad the german pilots must have been real aces - all of them - or all Entente pilots were bad - and i seriously doubt both.

As well some of the planes more seem to "hang" in the air, than they "fly", which is probably due to the CFS3 engine (?). Apart from the Albatros it is especially the SE5a that behaves strange in a way - maybe this feeling is generated by the engine smoke that somehow tends to "fall" a bit behind the plane.

For a change the AI RE8, and the AI "Biff" (probably because dl'ed and added as a non-OFF plane) outclass any one-seater scout, and even if the german Rumpler or the Roland "Walfisch" is said to be a good performing plane even at high altitudes attacking other scouts and shooting them down i at least doubt the RE8's chasing abilities ...

Greetings,
Catfish

womenfly2

October 28th, 2008, 16:21

On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.

... OFF is pretty close. A roll in any of these aircraft always starts with a dive for maneuvering airspeed before stick input. These plane loose energy very quickly, then they stall. Best example that most people will understand is a J3 Cub. ..... but there is way more to consider too.

WF2

P.S. Fly inverted? ... only if it was a positive-G maneuver.

77Scout

October 28th, 2008, 18:03

Way Back in Phase 1, a survey was carried out, if 100mph over a measured course, FELT slow or fast. As I remember, the results were pretty dang close to 50/50.

This survey was not much use as it was purely subjective, and as you say, concluded nothing either way. If I recall correctly, the OFF team then did actual time and distance measurements within the game and proved that the true speed of planes in CSF3 is less than the indicated air speed (as shown by hitting the 'z' key for example).

I don't believe this has been fixed as it is a major undertaking and there are more important matters to attend to. If it has been fixed then I expect one of the team members will let us know.

wehyam

October 28th, 2008, 19:24

On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.

For what its worth .. I think so.. and I think the stalls are a bit too benign as well :wiggle:

I find it hard to believe there isnt a set of numbers for the different types.. someone test flew these planes didnt they? Somewhere there must be a little book with yellowed pages .. Camel (Bentley) roll rate Right roll rate Left.. Vna 136 ... Vr 70?.. Just what were the Xwind max components?? or didnt they care about these things?
:kilroy:
BTW I noticed that the Nieuports weigh (without the guns or pilot) not much more than a microlight (450kgs MTOW).. and I guess flies a bit like them too (60deg bank max?, maybe not)

gimpyguy

October 28th, 2008, 19:50

gimpyguy

October 28th, 2008, 20:26

For what its worth .. I think so.. and I think the stalls are a bit too benign as well :wiggle: I find it hard to believe there isnt a set of numbers for the different types.. someone test flew these planes didnt they? Somewhere there must be a little book with yellowed pages .. Camel (Bentley) roll rate Right roll rate Left.. Vna 136 ... Vr 70?.. Just what were the Xwind max components?? or didnt they care about these things

It would be my contention, that the little yellow pages came into being in the 30's. The EIII was a wing warper. Hardly a test bed of aviation

The designer's were still, in the let's try this stage

That affair at Kittyhawk, was how long before, and they were 'Lucky' :d

catch22

October 28th, 2008, 20:58

... OFF is pretty close.

I'm with WF2 on this one. Not that I have a degree or great knowledge on the subject but it feels pretty good and I've flown ultralights.

The downside generally speaking {IMHO} is the AI is a little bit too uber and able to perform maneuvers that'd rip my wings off. So I wait quietly until they've finished showing off and then blow their brains out lol.

I think this is rectified in P3 ? We all know the AI (the intelligence bit) has been vastly improved in P3 but I'm unsure whether they'll still be able to perform uber maneuvers ? It all should be relative but I imagine it is not an easy thing to do.

womenfly2

October 29th, 2008, 00:19

The roll rates of these Birds can not be compared to an ultalight because of the centrifical force generated by the rotatating mass of the entire engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtprTL66-FY
This pilot discusses the flight characteristics of the Camel

After the War. . the 'rotory' engine, was never seen again :kilroy:

...... who mentioned they flew like ultralights before your post?

BTW, I have known Gene DeMarco for years at ORA, Cole too. I had a full set of Sopwith Triplane wings from ORA in my hanger along with my Pietenpol. Both great men and lovely people.

Just curious,
WF2

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 04:53

Womenfly2
I originally suggested'/hinted they might fly a bit like ultralights (microlights in my world) and quite frankly I think the OFF Nieuport and 'feels' a bit like one.. the Ikarus C42 maybe .. though that has a very benign 'stall'

And rotary engines.. gimpy.. did they 'evolve' into the radial engines ?

gimpyguy

October 29th, 2008, 09:34

About the only thing the rotory, ever had in common with radial, was the cylinder araingment, actually the radial existed at the time. But it was such a precise mechanism, it couldn't be mass produced. So overall cost per unit, reared it's ugly head. :kilroy:

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 10:28

I've been looking for a schematic of the 'rotary mechanism' .. Wikki got one for the radial but I've not found one for the 'rotary' .. do you know a site?

ZoomZoom

October 29th, 2008, 10:35

Great input folks...it helps to bounce things off of others, especially when delving into the ever so subjective arena of "perception". I'm totally fine with whatever the OFF team produces, thrilled in fact, and will buy it and play it incessantly, (much to my wife's amusement, but thats okay cause she'll be watching "The Hills") hehe, we all have our distractions. So like I said, I'm cool with it. Wuz just wondering when I began this what the perceptions of others were. My experience is with smaller versions, scale RC versions mostly, and NO, not flying planks with ridiculously over powered engines. What strikes me is this, for instance, when I am being assailed by hostiles from behind...in a bipe not a Tripe, and I hit forward-down elevator, I don't seem to drop out of the bullet stream as fast as I should....(again-perception! I could be wrong), also, when I hit right or left aileron the roll rate seems a bit retarded. What I've noticed when flying actual model type craft is that the roll rate seems a good bit faster, and the dive rate always much faster. Now, before you crucify me as to the difference in scale between models and full size, let me continue to say when I switched from flying a 40 inch span bird on glow, to an 88-inch gasser, the difference was, well staggering.....ITS SOOOOO SLOOOOOOW!! Well really, no it isn't, its just relative....to its scale of course. So this may well be the perception, or mis-perception we sometimes experience in-game. Couple this with the fact that the OFF craft are representing a few magnitudes in order larger planes, the fact that even though I dive or turn the pilot behind me firing is likely leading me, and that if you are near no fixed frame of reference, it seems like you are floating in space so even though you may be moving very fast, you just can't tell, I think all of these factors are potentially at play. So the OFF designers may be spot on. I do agree with Catfish that the Albatri could use some ability upgrading to make them more true to life....perhaps in Phase 3 eh? But I think overall OFF is very close.My only experience in a real biplane is most limited, that being to the one you can fly in at Old Rhinebeck, and of course we were not engaging in combat maneuvers......(no matter how much I tried to bribe the pilot....darn :d). And though you get all of that "rush of motion feel" while really flying there, which is the only thing you don't get in OFF, I'd bet if you were floating along outside that bird with none of that "feeling" to base perception on, or even in the cockpit, it would be much harder to tell exactly how fast you were going, or how quick the maneuvers you did were.

ZZ.

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 11:16

:wiggle: ZZ..
it may not be worth anything but I've been a passenger in a cessna aerobat while my instructor gave me a retirement birthday treat.. absolutely wonderful.. flicks half cubans .. loops etc..

this flies at about the same speed as the OFF planes... I remember the rate of roll being faster than OFFing.. But yesterday (on topic) I spent a happy hour or so trying emergency 90's..in my Camel.and a borrowed Nieuport.. .
This is an exercise .. he says go left or go right .. and you have to change direction 90 degrees as fast as possible back to level flight... emergency avoidance stuff.. Anyway I think the Nieuport (and maybe my camel) and how I remember the cessna, 'felt' sufficiently similar for me... :wiggle:
The problem of course is the little 'accelerometers' in the middle ear dont get excited in OFF , nor does the negative G detector in the stomach during the stall.. .... pity really..

think I'll go an check out the rate one turn ... GEEKY:redf:

ZoomZoom

October 29th, 2008, 13:18

That IS helpfull Weyham! Lucky you to have such a cool instructor too to allow you to stunt about. Yeah try the Albatros DIII sometime, seems a touch slow....your perspective is exactly what I'm getting at as being a pertinent point of reference.

ZZ.

Catfish

October 29th, 2008, 18:07

Hello womenfly,

concerning flight manoeuvers you wrote:

" ... OFF is pretty close. A roll in any of these aircraft always starts with a dive for maneuvering airspeed before stick input. These plane loose energy very quickly, then they stall. Best example that most people will understand is a J3 Cub. ..... but there is way more to consider too.
P.S. Fly inverted? ... only if it was a positive-G maneuver. ..."

I am generally convinced that OFF is close, however i doubt you can compare the flight characteristics of a Piper Cub with an Albatros in terms of weight, horsepower, top speed and service ceiling (?)

For what i read (i translated this some time ago, and posted it here or over at the aerodrome) reading Jentsch' book about his experinces with an Albatros DII, and later DIII.

He was used to fly Pfalz and Fokker monoplanes, when he first climbed into a DII. He describes the DII as an agile and nimble plane, a very good climber and turner - ok, 1916/17.
But he (and Udet in another book) speaks of flying barrel rolls, inverted (!) and loopings at very low altitude in a DII, he is almost courtmartialed because of that - but after very few time the whole Jasta executed those manoeuvers.
He also spoke of a squadron mate turning his Albatros upside down "in a second" - just try this in OFF. He also speaks of a glowing exhaust, and visible blue exhaust flames as long as the DII's engine was running.

William Bishop said:
"He [the pilot] has to be able to fly loopings, to turn and fly his machine upside down, and master numerous other artistic stunts - and not because this is necessary for the fight - but because once he has mastered those manoeuvers repeatedly, he will have faith in his skills, and he will not worry about the reaction of his plane in a fight. So he can fully concentrate on the enemy's attack, and the flying arises by itself. ..."

So from those quotes and texts i have a slight feeling of a general underestimating of the real potential of those planes. A bit like "they were not able to because this was a 100 years ago", and today we certainly know better.

Be it as it may, i am really waiting for Phase 3, and i will keep asking questions, even if i'm wrong :d

Greetings,
Catfish

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 18:20

hey ho ZZ..
:wiggle: I think you're right.. The Albatros are slower in the 'roll' than the later ones .. Today I been mostly flying the German planes. I think the Fokker DVII's are the pick of the bunch.. .. they do feel to me like a plane should!!.. BUT..

But what do I know.... but I know what I like..:kilroy:

I was thinking about this 'feel' thing .. and I dug out my X-plane sim this afternoon and it reminded me of what annoyed me about it.. :banghead: and much is directed towards systems (rather like the real world aviation) than low slow and be accurate or die.. whereas, in contrast the demands of OFF are to make the planes controllable and flyable so it possible to aim and shoot each other down..

I think the illusion that the 'sim/game' has to get over is that of inertia.. the plane has to feel as though there's some mass that you can steer and that you have to learn to control the 'physics' input that is needed to move it accurately about.. The camel may be a pig with wings... but it seems to behave like a pig with wings should!:wiggle:

So the joystick (pedals) travel and 'gearing' to the control surfaces is of course indirect and can't be realistic but it can be 'sensible' ie sort of repeatable so the relationship between the input you make and what the sim tells you your plane has done can be learned .. and maybe you can fine tune the profile of your stick but IMO this is not the key.. the relationship between the input and the response has to be reliable and sensible so the 'physics' feels right..
:173go1:
What I think OFF has got nailed (I also think the planes I flew in IL2 had it too) ,and it's not simply due to the absence of 'turbulence', is that it somehow magically conveys this 'feel' that the thing is half a ton or more moving 'smoothly' along the arc of a 3D trajectory (coordinated or not) ..

'Stunting' the Fokker DVIIs is pure pleasure..I think the illusion is that excellent..I can believe this thing is sliding and carving beautiful smooth arcs through the sky..and I'm controlling it.. Thanks guys .. that feeling alone is worth twice the donation.. :icon_lol:

Stunting the Camel is less pure pleasure but the illusion is there.
Its just that now in order to get the smooth trajectory to get me where I want to be I have to learn some unusual rudder skills.. BUT when I do it right it feels like I think it should .. and when I do it wrong.. it still feels like I think it should!!

Another part of the illusion of controllability is the scale of the objects.. the visual perspective cues have to be 'realistic' or stable anyway.. You can't have 300ft tall trees and silly height buildings around the airstrip and expect judgement of the approach angle and height above apron to be reliable..
BUT maybe this is enough already..
:ernae:

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 18:50

hey ho Catfish and others..
I'm not sure how relevant this is.. but the curtis P-40 courld roll at 95deg/sec at an airspeed of 270mph and at 400 mph it dropped to 65 deg sec.

High stick forces were a problem!!
this is a book!!
http://books.google.com/books?id=D-ctX2Q-CSIC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=roll+rate+of+aircraft&source=web&ots=sf6z4vV2zr&sig=ZNugH-hEuJQbkE8oxAU8MkeBmbo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1

it doesnt say much about WWI stuff except to say that stick forces at combat speeds were high!! The camel had a tail heavy cg position and killed students!!! :wiggle:

wehyam

October 29th, 2008, 19:07

The war birds fraternityhave been there.. this contains a table of WWII data and warbird kit comparisons..

http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/nacaroll.htm

essentially : warbird planes roll slower than real ones.. and the slower speeds the difference is greatest.. FW190 4.8s vs 7.5s WB-FW190 I assume this is for a 360..
the spitfire took 4sec to roll 360 at 100mph and 3.1s to do it at 300mph..

So.. :kilroy:

gimpyguy

October 29th, 2008, 20:14

Very Good . . in the 30's, and 40's

But Prior to then the engineers at Shukert ( spelling ?) had an aircraft which was unflyable, due to excessive engine torque.

The solution was an oversize rudder, and the wings extended 4 inches on the portside. I wonder if that had any effect on the roll rate :d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x70t5XuUxOg

Olham54

November 1st, 2008, 09:14

Regarding the training...

from what I've read .. one of the major 'training' needs for people was not so much stunt flying practice, but it was to get used to seeing/spotting and classifying the aircraft around them .. it is surprisingly difficult .. :173go1:

fortunately OFF lets me have big yellow brackets and labels.. and .. if I havent noticed anything a red list of damage reports acts as a hint that I've missed something!

besides which.. if you use a camel all you really have to learn is how to get it in and out of a spin (the first bit's easy, coming out of the spin in the right direction is the hard bit.. ) :wiggle:

About the CAMEL's difficult handling, I've recently read somewhere in the web (shame on me I don't remember, where):
With the Camel, you had to give RUDDER LEFT IN TURNING EITHER SIDE. When turning right, rudder left kept the nose up. When turning left, rudder left prevented the nose from climbing. (sorry, my English is far from perfect - hope, it's understood). Seems to have something to do with a strong engine spin, or the air spiral round the fuselage caused by the propeller; does anyone know? (The Bf 109 G's needed hard rudder right at starting/landing, I read - maybe for a similar reason?)

gimpyguy

November 1st, 2008, 11:04

About the CAMEL's difficult handling, I've recently read somewhere in the web (shame on me I don't remember, where):
With the Camel, you had to give RUDDER LEFT IN TURNING EITHER SIDE. When turning right, rudder left kept the nose up. When turning left, rudder left prevented the nose from climbing. (sorry, my English is far from perfect - hope, it's understood). Seems to have something to do with a strong engine spin, or the air spiral round the fuselage caused by the propeller; does anyone know? (The Bf 109 G's needed hard rudder right at starting/landing, I read - maybe for a similar reason?)

As far as the Camel's strange habits, much of it could be traced directly to the centrifical force generated by that massive ( at that time ) rotary engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtprTL66-FY ( first 2 minutes)

They utilized a bit of high rudder in the turn, as they used the rudder as a huge elevator, when first introduced, it earned the name: Widowmaker. Because many a unsuspecting new pilot, attempted a tight right turn, and dove to his death.

That is the primary reason, I shy away from the camel

That's my reason, I like the Tripe, however she's not without Quirks. You must remember to chop your throttle prior to diving, because at 155mph your elevators STOP working. I've taken that one-way trip, too often :d

wehyam

November 1st, 2008, 12:16

Olham...
Apparently the camel also liked to stall at takeoff..:wiggle:
however.. I like it.. Since I started Offing I've mainly flown the camel and must have some 30-40 maybe more hours in it in QC Dogfigts (burnt a dozen or more pilots!). Now I've become used to it's Quirks(!!) I think it has real virtues. Even against the Fokker DVIIs which are by far the 'nicer' planes .
God knows what it would be like to fly a real one.. :173go1:
But once you've got the zoomer boomers down low, because it can really turn inside so rapidly, it's 'easy' to cut across their energy 'bowl' and hook onto them .. and just give them a bad time.. (maybe the AI are just dumb)..
and almost nothing (except maybe the RB in a DRI ).. can stick on their tail going left.. So like the Boelcke says.. keep on the rim and you'll soon be on their six..

Never flown the Tripe (? wotsat then) .. maybe will try it.. right now.. :ernae:

gimpyguy

November 1st, 2008, 16:18

Sopwith Triplane - single gun - excellent low speed manuverability
climb rate is great- visabity excellent- a DOG above 10,000- fires rockets as if by MAGIC from it's belly. The loadout states 8 rockets, you get 4 :costumes:

wehyam

November 1st, 2008, 16:33

Not my sort of plane that Gimpy.... It kept falling apart.. and I notice you only get half as many rounds. :wiggle:
I'm staying with the Camel till the snipe arrives.. mind you it has got good visibility.. especially after you shed a wing or two.. and you're right the elevators dont work over 150..:173go1:

Polovski

November 1st, 2008, 17:19

Quite right Weyham, left rudder in both turns. Nose goes up in left hand turn, down in right hand on the Camel otherwise. P3 one is even more fun but you will see ;). If you get it right spins on a sixpence or dime ;).
ZoomZoom yep Albatros are better in P3 still take some strength to dogfight, and often they stayed out of turning fights, but a little more agile.

gimpyguy

November 1st, 2008, 17:24

To each his own, twice the amount of bullets carried, do not mean twice the kills. I'm looking forward to the Phase 3 Triplane of death, she'll feature twin Vickers, with a 1000 rounds.
It remains to be seen if the added weight, effects low speed flight, because there was no modification to the engine :kilroy:

Olham54

November 1st, 2008, 17:27

After all I read here, I can only assume, that the AI in my "Quick Missions" (my "Campaigns" still don't work; but I'll try a reinstall tomorrow) isn't that clever (although I chose "Aces" for pilots!) - the other option would be, I was a real ace, which I don't believe (well, I'm shooting pretty good). Today, I've burnt two Camels in one flight, without getting seriously hit, and I could have got more, if I had had more ammo.
I'm mostly flying a Pfalz D III - a solid, good-willed plane, good view around, and very easy to handle, when about to stall. The easiest-to-fly German plane besides the D VII, I think. Beginners, try it! As an Allied novice pilot I prefer the S.A.E. 5, which seems to me like the "Hurricane " of WW1.

FOR POLOVSKI and his wingmen (Hope you still find time to read all our brain bubbles): on the website of the EADS (www.eads.com (http://www.eads.com)) I've found something interesting about the ALBATROS D III. I read, it was also built in Austria by the OEFAG; but their engineers had insisted in stabilising the lower wing with a second holm. So, that model didn't break in long dives! (Why German production wouldn't take notice of this, may remain one of those mysteries - may be pig ignorance!) The Austrians also put a more powerful engine in, and that D III was succesfully built and used in the Austrian army 'till the end of the war. Have you thought of "creating" some Austrian JASTA's using this version? Might be a nice add to the game, with not too much circumstance to do?
Greetings to you all - you're a nice community here!

Polovski

November 1st, 2008, 17:34

Yep thought of that Olham54, one day, if days had 48 hours in them it would be in there already :) I like the idea of a 'super' Albatros which it was.

QC is generally not so hot, also INCREASING your sliders will boosty AI generally as will better/faster PCs. Also for the best AI, challenging, and sometimes very deadly, you need PHASE 3 :).
Most people think that lowering sliders, frees up CPU so AI should be better, nope. Lower sliders means lesser AI are chosen as you just told CFS3 your PC is bad ;)

Olham54

November 1st, 2008, 17:53

Thanks, Pol, for this immediate advice about the AI - I'll try out tomorrow, what can be done. And maybe, after reinstalling (following your advices I collected from various contributions), I'll get into the pleasure of fighting Campaigns (finding out, I'm still a beginner, not an ace).
And as for the Albatros D III: how could I even have the slightest doubt, if you had heard about that. Sorry, didn't want to be pushing. Carry on well;
and have a nice Sunday!

wehyam

November 1st, 2008, 18:36

I'm mostly flying a Pfalz D III - a solid, good-willed plane, good view around, and very easy to handle, when about to stall. The easiest-to-fly German plane besides the D VII, I think. Beginners, try it! ...

I agree.. Apart from the landings (which seem to me to be a little more punitive than necessary! come on bursting.. into flames with a little bounce from 2ft ..nah :kilroy:) I think the Fokker and the Pfalz are the best 'beginners' planes I've 'flown' in any sim.. X-plane, MSFSX, 2004, IL2.. etc..

and as for learning to do the real thing (particularly microlights) I think OFF is brilliant. coordinated turns, PAT and APT.. I even think the slide slipping is realistic.. well believable anyway..
All it needs is a standard attitude indicator and turn cordinator making up the 'six pack' , maybe some flaps and the carb heat and before you know what its the best fun PPL flight test training sim ever.. No we dont need the VOR Nav/Com radio stack we are talking flying.. manual 1.:173go1:

And if I could get a decent map( a real paper one) that corresponded to the 'terrain' I'd be doing cross countries. Anyone any advice on that?:wiggle:

gimpyguy

November 1st, 2008, 19:36

As far as real maps are concerned, you might try checking out #13 of the STICKY it's one the few not authored by yours truely, for some pointers :kilroy:

Catfish

November 2nd, 2008, 06:54

Hello,

the Oeffag Albatros planes were indeed more sturdy, and i still wonder why this change in the lower wing (2nd spar) along with other, if minor, improvements by the Oeffag did not make it into the "normal" series.

Certainly aviation was in its beginning, and even constructors and engineers themselves did not really know what happened during flight. They measured the weight a wing would carry under static conditions, placing sand bags on it until it broke off - however dynamic energies influencing the wing and fuselage were almost unknown.

There was e.g. a pilot (forgot the name) who said his Alb DIII lower wing leading edge suddenly moved during a glide, but downward (!), and then began to "wobble". He survived and crash-landed his plane with the upper wing alone, and told what he had seen prior to the lower wing breaking off, to the german "Idflieg" (monitoring organisation of plane quality, and improvements). But they would not believe him, and he himself then began to doubt what he saw - if it cannot happen, i must be wrong ...

He was certainly right, at a certain speed the lower wing wobbled, he just did not understand why the front wing edge moved downward if the plane was supposed to "swim" on the air - there only could be pressure from underneath ? Today we assume that it was the beginning of a harnonic vibration, a self-enhancing movement, due to the speed of the air stream.

And additionally I think it is like nowadays, there are some management and politics idiots that either have no idea of about what they decide, or are just too ignorant, or arrogant. The people that have to live with the consequences of those management decisions are never heard.

Again a question, and it still is one - let me just say i am doing a kind of "brainstorming" here...

since i heard about this Alb flying - i will post anything if i find it again in the books, but they are numerous, and only partly deal with the Alb planes.

Inverted flying - should be no problem for a short time in a looping, where the g-force still holds the fuel at the bottom of the tank, and feeding system, ok.

Then the carburettors - there were already carburettors allowing inverted flying before the war (see Pégoud, the Etrich and Rumpler "Taube" planes etc.). Some of the german "Argus" carburettors designed for inverted flying could be fitted to other-than-Argus engines.

And the fuel feeding system: there were not even mechanically driven fuel pumps in the Albatros afaik, but the whole tank was set under pressure with a pressure pump. There were also hand pumps for initial pressure before the engine start, and emergency situations.
(This certainly does not apply for the second "free-fall" pressure-less emergency tank, that could be switched on in case of a pressure drop, or failure of the normal feeding system).

So regardless the position of the fuselage and engine, there would be enough pressure to feed the engine with fuel.
The swimmer in the tank was also designed in a way to pick up fuel at any position.
So why no inverted flying at least in some of the planes ?

Is there any list of planes, that were able to fly inverted, and why ?

Thanks and greetings,
Kai

Olham54

November 2nd, 2008, 09:34

Hi, Catfish
If my memory doesn't fail me, the pilot with the broken wing was Richthofen himself. But, contrary to some later "story telling" of others about that event, he didn't lose the whole lower wing, but only half the left or right wing (I assume, it broke at the point, where the "V-shaped" holding construction fits to the lower wing). Olham

womenfly2

November 2nd, 2008, 14:23

The lower wing attachment was copied from the Nieuport design. It was a cylindrical clamp around the main lower wing spar. It was found that it let the wing pivot in flight at became loose in time. The fix was to brace the wing by a small strut extending from the main V-strut to the wing leading edge. You can see this in most photo's. The upper wing carried most of the load.

The Nieuport suffered the same issue, do not recall any fix for it.

WF2

Catfish

November 2nd, 2008, 15:16

Hello,

what this pilot saw (it was not Richthofen this time ;-), but he experienced the same) was most probably what you see at this next page, second from above/left side:
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft-articles/31781-defeat-design.html?garpg=7
The wing drops at the leading edge.
Maybe you will have to log on to see all this, but i would suggest you should become a member there anyway. Tons of information and real helpful people over there :wavey:

Greetings,
Catfish

Catfish

November 2nd, 2008, 15:18

sorry, double post ...

Olham54

November 7th, 2008, 06:10

WW1 Fighter Aircraft Combat Maneuvers (http://www.geocities.com/ww1fighters/media/maneuver.htm)

Cheers,
WF2

...a fascinating woman! This little combat manoeuver training is as simple as it's good! I wonder, if it can all be done with my little PFALZ D IIIa, but I'll try. (So, if you don't hear of me no more...) Thanks for posting it. Cheers; Olham

Parky

November 7th, 2008, 07:25

I'm looking forward to the Phase 3 Triplane of death, she'll feature twin Vickers, with a 1000 rounds.

Gimpster....I'm really looking forward to that too. I believe however that in keeping with historical accuracy, it'll probably be available in campaign via the RNAS for a fairly short period. Perhaps Pol can shed a bit of light in terms of it's availability.

Cheers,

Parky

gimpyguy

November 7th, 2008, 08:43

Well it's an act, I'm all tooo familiar with, it's mostly groundhog day for my pilots. As soon as the Camels appear, it's time to retire, and give the younger brother a shot at jerry. :costumes:

shredward

November 7th, 2008, 10:36

Gimpster....I'm really looking forward to that too. I believe however that in keeping with historical accuracy, it'll probably be available in campaign via the RNAS for a fairly short period. Perhaps Pol can shed a bit of light in terms of it's availability.
Cheers,
Parky

Naval Ten 29/07/17 > 23/08/17

Cheers,
shredward

Parky

November 7th, 2008, 11:25

That's typically about 2 weeks longer than most of my pilots last anyway...:redf:. Now that's what I call historical accuracy!!

Thanks for the info Shred!

Cheers,

Parky

shredward

November 7th, 2008, 18:09

Well, it's a teensy-weensy stretch, because there were only two in the unit, and Collishaw had one of them :redf: ....
but the other is available for you, dear reader :wavey:
Cheers,
shredward

Parky

November 7th, 2008, 20:37

The only info I could dig up tells me there were only six built in total. Collishaw's squadron #10 had a couple, and a couple ended up in squadron #1. Apparently the weight of the additional gun was a bit much for the what I assume was the Clerget 9B, and due to the overall decreased performance, they discontinued the project.

I do believe if they could have fitted it with a more powerful engine and not sacrificed it's positive handling characteristics, it would have been a magnificent aircraft. Actually.....if it was good enough for Ray Collishaw (even in it's experimental phase), it's good enough for me :applause:.

Cheers,

Parky