Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Noir on October 20, 2009, 05:29:31 AM
-
No French plane is the first four, I am disappointed ! :furious
-
Not a real surprise ,no ?
-
I would have expected the Spad XIII or the Nieuport 17 to be in the first release. HTC might have been a little perplexed when there were no American planes to model, which hopefully explains the omission. :joystick:
-
Morane Sauliner
Newport
SPAD
Bristol
Sopwith Triplane, Pup, Camel and Snipe
DeHavilland
S.E.5
Vickers
Albatros
Aviatik
D.F.W.
Fokker
Friedrichshafen
Gotha
Hannoversche
Roland
L.V.G.
Pflaz
Halberstadt
Rumpler
Zepplin
Macchi
FIAT
S.V.A
Jenny
Thomas Morse Scout
-
That's a nice list bustr, but its length obscures the fact that the Nieuport and Spad series made a far bigger impact than 90% of the names you list.
-
As did the Albatross and even the Dr1. The Albatross dictated British and French rapid development of competative fighters. Bloody April anyone. I would think asking where is the Sopwith Triplane and Pup just as correct. They were answers to the Albatross as well as the Newport 11 to the Fokker Scourge.
-
There was no newport plane ever build in France ... but some nieuport :)
and some Morane-Saulnier too :D
-
Sorry, when I took french in highschool I spelled everything phoneticly.
Nieuport 11<----happy now <S>
-
Nieuport series was also an important aircraft to many smaller Allied air forces (ie.- Belgium, Rumania, Russia, etc.), as was the SPAD. Most successful in French hands, but by no means French exclusively.
And I'm torn over which to hope for first personally, the Albatros D.II or the Nieuport 28C. Both are drool worthy IMO.
We should start out with Eindeckers and Avro 504s though. :D
-
I would have expected the Spad XIII
Now that is a real plane.
-
Sorry, when I took french in highschool I spelled everything phoneticly.
Nieuport 11<----happy now <S>
I always spell french phonetically ,I must say it's easier for me :D
-
I had expected a Nieuport or Spad before the Bristol. I'm thinking that they will probably be the first one's to add in a couple months.
But after seeing the Sopwith Dolphin as a kid at Rhinebeck Aerodrome, that's first on my list to add. :pray
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3380/3554071825_a5679307c1.jpg)
-
No French plane is the first four, I am disappointed ! :furious
I meant "IN" the first four. The Spad XIII would be my plane of choice, but I guess it would be perk material :D
-
Not a real surprise ,no ?
Not really, I was hoping they knew better :uhoh
-
When I heard there were going to be four planes added, I also thought SPAD XIII would have been there instead of the Bristol Fighter. But it looks like HTC wanted to one bigger scout and Bristol Fighter certainly fits the bill. After that, Camel is pretty much a must have and 2 axis rides vs to allied rides sounds like a smart devision.
-
There's no axis in WWI, right?
Central Powers vs. Entente Powers.
-
There's no axis in WWI, right?
Central Powers vs. Entente Powers.
You are right, old habits die hard. :) Of course I meant Central Powers. :)
-
let me guess like biquette (BK) you will fly an Albatros ? :)
-
I still think the Albatros D series are some of the most lethally beautiful fighting aircraft ever made. With those shark-like lines and that round, blunt nose it has always looked to me like the Bf-109s grandpa.
-
let me guess like biquette (BK) you will fly an Albatros ? :)
"biquette" ... :rofl :D :aok
I'll be in the German scouts, I find most of them interesting. :)
I like the D.VII and the idea of using spiral climb while on the defensive or offensive.
-
I'm a Nieuport guy myself and like the looks of the French planes , but Camel is a must have ride for sure .
Nutte
-
They should have skipped the VII or the Bristol, I'd go for the SE5/Nieuport/Spad and the Albatros as more of a norm.
Anyway, do we have a smell of upcoming bipes for AHII??????? Gladiator? CR42?
?
-
most of the American planes in WWI were flying boats??? :headscratch:
-
only HTC would be able to find a way and leave out a French plane out of the initial WW1 plane set.
:uhoh
-
Key words are initial plane set. Leave it to the AH community to look a gift horse in the mouth.
-
Key words are initial plane set. Leave it to the AH community to look a gift horse in the mouth.
QFT
-
When I heard there were going to be four planes added, I also thought SPAD XIII would have been there instead of the Bristol Fighter. But it looks like HTC wanted to one bigger scout and Bristol Fighter certainly fits the bill. After that, Camel is pretty much a must have and 2 axis rides vs to allied rides sounds like a smart devision.
The Brisfit gives people a chance to have a rear gunner who counts for something. The type was hugely successful (after it's first dreadful outing) in the war and was the inspiration for the Me-110, the Boulton-Paul Defiant and some others which thankfully never entered production. It also gives the Allies an energy fighter to counter the D7. People who enjoy squadron cameraderie might well start to pair up into Brisfit crews.
- oldman
-
Sopwith Camel
all the way baby
-
The Brisfit gives people a chance to have a rear gunner who counts for something. The type was hugely successful (after it's first dreadful outing) in the war and was the inspiration for the Me-110, the Boulton-Paul Defiant and some others which thankfully never entered production.
Yep, pretty much what I was saying, that they obviously wanted something "different" instead of having four single seater scouts. IMO Brisfit is a great choise as the first two-seater.
It also gives the Allies an energy fighter to counter the D7.
Just like the SPAD would have been. :) I doubt we'll see two historical sides fighting each other where the planes have to counter each other (of course they have to for special events, though). I'm betting there will be knits, bishes and rooks fighting each other with identical planesets. As much as I'd like to see the historical planeset happen, it would need "a perfect world" to work especially with limited planeset. :(
-
I'm betting there will be knits, bishes and rooks fighting each other with identical planesets.
How sad. Hope not.
- oldman (AvA to the end)
-
How sad. Hope not.
I just don't see how it would be in anyway different to the current situation, worse actually. With any planeset there are those couple planes that "masses" will fly because they are the most competetive rides. With just four planes, it's probably going to be a single plane which is all around the best choise for the type of fighting that will happen in the WWI-arena. I may well be wrong in all this, aswell as in my guess of the most popular plane, but my bet is that it will be the Camel. Anyway (it really doesn't matter which plane it will be), then most people will flock into it which in turn makes the two sides lopsided. So then you'll have greater numbers in better planes gang banging the side with "worse" planes and lower numbers.
Finally, I would very, very gladly like to be wrong in all this because I really would like to see historical sides and the immersion that brings.
Of course the AvA is a good place to have historical sides and there it might be more easily possible to keep the sides even.
-
In DoA big majority of the playerbase would fly the Camel and nothing else. Given the fact that it was easy to fly, could out turn anything and was still pretty fast (like a Spit XVI :neener:), it's no wonder.
-
Everything I ever read, said the Camel was a dangerous airplane... Short and unstable, with tremendous engine torque... Crashed alot of experienced pilots...
RC
-
Everything I ever read, said the Camel was a dangerous airplane... Short and unstable, with tremendous engine torque... Crashed alot of experienced pilots...
RC
That was why I asked in another thread if the engines and throttles would be realistically modeled.
-
Rgr Karnak, I remember reading that... I was wondering about the guns too? They were mounted loosely so they didn't pound the wooden structure to splinters... Gave a splattering effect to the gunfire... Which required getting VERY CLOSE to your target... LOL, If we get it realistic, this is gonna be a KICK!!!
RC
-
In DoA big majority of the playerbase would fly the Camel and nothing else. Given the fact that it was easy to fly, could out turn anything and was still pretty fast (like a Spit XVI :neener:), it's no wonder.
From everything I've heard, it was even harder to fly than the Dr.I. Absolutely vicious torque, touchy controls and an almost nonexistent center of gravity. I know a few guys working on a replica kit and they're intentionally trying to make it more stable and easier to control because they're afraid if they make it handle realistically it'll kill half the guys who build and fly it.
-
Yes, when I said "easy to fly," I was talking about how it was modeled in DoA. I will be very surprised if the handling of our F1 is bad enough to cause our virtual pilots to eschew it; it will be the noob ride of ww1.
-
The Dr1 was also a touchy a/c to fly, also having the rotary torque, and was not for the inexperienced. Both it and the Camel were "hands on" for the entire flight, and both were wickedly manueverable in right hand turns. Many WW1 a/c had unforgiving characteristics and stalls. N00b pilots died at alarming rates in many types to all kinds of causes, enemy bullets being but one. Pilot training was also not what it would be 20 yrs later, that coupled with types that were accepted for production with limited testing, compared to say WW2, led to a lot of incidents.
All that being said, by mid 1916, it was total war, and countries were in a huge rush to get new combat planes and pilots to fill out their air forces. Losing a percentage to that kind of needed haste was just considered the cost of war. They just didn't have the luxury or time to make the process safer, nor was the culture to do so there at the time.
Compare that to today, a fighter student who fails to propery "shut down" after coming to a stop and misses a single switch, gets brought up before a review by the instructor and gets a new one torn out. Safety is taught as the golden rule, and mistakes, even minor ones, are just not tolerated. In WW1 if you CAME BACK, you were a success story.
-
WWI, no trims adjustable in flight either! Just your mind, your feet on the pedals, and your hand on the stick!
OH MAN, this is gonna be FUN!!!
Brought to mind an old Jonny Quest episode... The one where Race Bannon had to duel with the evil german ace/war criminal, after making a forced landing at a remote south american airstrip... Evil Ace guy, left the ammo out of Race's SPAD, so he cut the tail off the badguys D7 with his prop... Then a condor got him, hah!!!
One of my Fav episodes!!!
RC
-
yep lets talk about trimming, do you think we'll get the combat trim on these birds ?
-
Hell man, I don't think most (if any) had any trim tabs AT ALL! LOL!!!
Have you read about the "penguins", that the French used to train their pilots? "Penguins" were Morane monoplanes with the wings removed, so trainees would motor around the field, learning rudder control and engine management... (no throttle)
MANY died in training!!!
RC
-
Hell man, I don't think most (if any) had any trim tabs AT ALL! LOL!!!
Well a lot of WWII didn't have the trim tabs for ALL the surfaces, and none that I know of had auto trim. Yet we have them.
-
Many WW1 a/c had unforgiving characteristics and stalls. N00b pilots died at alarming rates in many types to all kinds of causes, enemy bullets being but one. Pilot training was also not what it would be 20 yrs later, that coupled with types that were accepted for production with limited testing, compared to say WW2, led to a lot of incidents.
I would be interested to see a comparison of non-combat loss rates for the RFC, French, and German air forces. IIRC, German pilots received about 40 hours of flight time before being sent to the front, compared with ~15 for the RFC. At the very least, the different training times lead to a disparity in K/D ratios for the respective air forces.
-
Only one I can recall off the top of my head is that the Camel was credited with about 1300 kills while suffering about 1400 losses (including just under 400 non-combat). I'll have to scrounge around a bit and see if I can find any more.
-
The 1917-18 RFC Canada Training Plan graduated 3272 pilots and observers for the RFC/RAF. Of that 137 were killed during training. So thats @ 4 percent. Certainly a much improved ratio from the earlier days im sure. That doesn't speak to the difficulties of surviving on the Western Front in combat however, where death waited for the unlucky, the unwary, and the foolish.
The #hrs spent in training differed during the war, my understanding is as the war progressed the RFC hrs of training increased on average. I think the 15 hrs quote is probably from early 1917. I will try to find some better data. Osprey has a book on the RFC pilots, I bet they have some good info. Whatever it was, and wether you were USAS, RFC, German Air Service, French Air Service, to be a new pilot on the Front in scouts, was a dangerous place to be. Many did not survive two months on ops.
-
Heres a quote from the page deicated to the Lieghterton RFC Cemetary where many Australian Fliers from WWI are interred. Bold and italics are mine. Gives you an idea of just how dangerous a life those boys had from the moment they started training until (if) they went home again.
Leighterton Cemetery is situated close to the site of the former Royal Flying Corps airfield bearing the same name. Established in 1918 the airfield was used to train pilots in readiness for action in France. In 1911 the British Government urged the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada to develop their own air warfare capability. It was the Australian government who were the first to take up on this and by early 1918 were sending their cadet pilots to Leighterton and Minchinhampton for training. The trainee fighter pilots were often chosen because of their adeptness at horsemanship, whilst others already had experience of flying aircraft. The Australians were generally well liked by local people and enjoyed a degree of notoriety within the community. However, thirty of these young men were to lose their lives before they even saw active service and those who were lucky enough to survive training had an operational life expectancy of less than nine days. Many of those who were lost are now buried in this immaculately maintained and peaceful cemetery. It is worth noting that after two decades of private flying at Leighterton, following its abandonment by the military, the site was in March 1940 allocated to No. 9 SFTS at Hullavington for use as a relief landing ground. There is however no historical evidence to suggest that Leighterton was used for this purpose.
:salute
-
Hoho, as a Brit who was born in Gosport, Hampshire, four miles from the site of Grange Airfield where the great Smith-Barry 'taught the world to fly' at the RFC School of Special Flying, I can't help being amused by the USA-biased view of desirable Great War aircraft - 'I gotta have a SPAD.' With the honourable exception of volunteers who served with the French Air Force or enlisted with the British RFC, RNAS or RAF by way of Canada or the other Commonwealth forces, no American pilot participated in the conflict until the last year of the war - so the contribution of those brave flying doughboys who did make it into combat was a minor factor in the Allied victory. I salute them all, but I reckon we Old-Worlders might know just a li'l bit about early war-flying, eh?
I flew in iEN's Dawn of Aces for years. It was a fun sim once the crucial role of the two-seater was recognised and the whole point of WW1 air-fighting could be re-created by spotting for the artillery, dropping all the hangars and capturing the field. Up until then, it just seemed to be an endless furball 'tween the two closest airfields - fun, but not a fair picture of WW1 flying. The greatest killer of troops in WW1 was artillery, and that artillery was blind without the spotters in the BE2c or RE8 or Albatros C.III calling out the fall of shot via morse W/T. Aerial photography replaced the scribbled notes made by observers desperate to see what the enemy was doing 'over the hill' - more work for the two-seaters. And the single-seater, being slightly faster and more nimble, evolved into the first specialised fighter aircraft to stop the spotting, which led to fighter escorts and combat patrols, which led to the whirling dogfights wot the fighter-jockeys know and love . . . but the core of all air forces 1914-19 (we Brits were still fighting the Reds in Russia) was the two-seater. Well done, AH, on including the Bristol F2B Fighter ('Biff' in WW1, or plain 'Fighter'; the 'Brisfit' nickname was post-WW1) in the initial planeset; hope the RE8, BE2 series and Albatros and Rumplers appear eventually, alongside the better-known SE5/5a, et al.
-
Hoho, as a Brit who was born in Gosport, Hampshire, four miles from the site of Grange Airfield where the great Smith-Barry 'taught the world to fly' at the RFC School of Special Flying, I can't help being amused by the USA-biased view of desirable Great War aircraft - 'I gotta have a SPAD.'
You completely misunderstand the cry for the Spad XIII. It's about a desire for French representation...you know, your allies who bled even more than the UK?
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2.
Hey, sonny, don't worry your little head about it. The French and Brits used to be very good at getting themselves into dumb wars that they couldn't get out of. So I'm sure they know what they're talking about when it comes to death and destruction.
- oldman
-
I see an American needs a English/English to English/American dictionary.
laddie = buddy
-
WWI, no trims adjustable in flight either! Just your mind, your feet on the pedals, and your hand on the stick!
OH MAN, this is gonna be FUN!!!
Wrong.
The SE5a and many of the Sopwith fighters had trimable tabs.
-
I see an American needs a English/English to English/American dictionary.
laddie = buddy
If that's the case, then I would have to retract my complaint. When I look up the word in a dictionary, it says "young boy." I think I've seen enough British movies to understand the meaning of the word.
On the other hand, the point still stands that he refuses to believe that we're asking for the Spad XIII on the merit of representing the French.
-
Don't talk to me about allies or death in war, laddie, my family has lost all too many members in too many conflicts for me to be impressed. Just read your history, open your mind and pull your Stars-'n'-Striped finger out.
Cheers!
Ignorant statement. Your family history is irrelevant.
The fact is France built and fielded the most scouts of any country, more than Germany or the United Kingdom. The Aeronautique Militaire was the largest air force,
I realize this is the initial plane set. But with 4 aircraft, it should have been a French, a British, and two German scouts included.
It's not 'looking a gift horse in the mouth' , it is just my opinion. I am happy with any scouts of WW1 ,, I mean , it is like opening up a Korea arena and forgetting the Communists at the start
-
Wrong.
The SE5a and many of the Sopwith fighters had trimable tabs.
Now herein lies a problem... I've Been perusing period pics, (genuine WWI), and Museum Aircraft pics... They show no trim tabs on SE5a.... Just as I have read in other sources...
But the Airshow reenactors REPLICA planes DO have simple bendable tabs on rudder and elevator.. (still not adjustable in flight) Its an expected thing for modern guys to add trim tabs to these planes, that can be more than a little dangerous to fly in their original form... Hell, modern regulations probably require it, for certification to fly at all....
I am hoping that HT will give us this arena as RAW MEAT... I don't need or want it "cooked" by modern convenience.. That would ruin it for me...
RC (see below, don't see any trim tabs, do you?)
Sopwith Camel, at the imperial war museum
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/RipChord929/CamelTail.jpg)
SE5 at National Museum In Australia
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/RipChord929/SE5originalMuseumPiece.jpg)
-
Sorry Rip that should be stab, like on the 109 and 190.
Look thro this link, http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node/2693
In one of the pics you can see the trim wheel to the left of the pilot seat.
Now, lined up into wind I bring the speed back to 60 and wind the tail trim fully nose up for the landing.
http://www.eaa.org.za/articles/se5a-pilot-report
-
Ah Rgr Milo, I stand corrected on the SE5... By all means, if the plane had pitch trim in RL, then it should be there in game as well... But if not, then NOT!!! Same with yaw and roll trims... But it shouldn't be a blanket app to all planes... That adjustable horizontal stab is some pretty advanced equip for 1917...
And yeah I scrounged around and found a pic of one of the museum originals with the wheel peekin behind the seat.. Don't really trust replica builders of any genre, bikes, cars, or planes.. Too often they sneak stuff in that doesn't belong... Those guys did a hell of a job tho, very cool!!!
This is the first enthusiasm I've had for this game in awhile, just hoping like hell that it isn't cheezed up with a bunch of silly stuff... Last go'round for me...
:salute RC
-
Sorry Rip that should be stab, like on the 109 and 190.
Look thro this link, http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node/2693
In one of the pics you can see the trim wheel to the left of the pilot seat.
Now, lined up into wind I bring the speed back to 60 and wind the tail trim fully nose up for the landing.
http://www.eaa.org.za/articles/se5a-pilot-report
You noticed your quote come from a 1999 article ?
Where did this test flight take place and when? The depot at St Omer in August 1918 just before the big push at Biaches? No, at Old Warden Aerodrome, August 1999.
I seriously doubt and original SE5 was used.
-
Here you go Straffo. :)
F904 / G-EBIA This aeroplane never saw service use and was purchased ‘new’ after the war by Major J C Savage for his skywriting business and registered G-EBIA. It was rediscovered suspended from the roof of the Armstrong Whitworth flight shed at Whitley in 1955, was restored for the Collection by staff and apprentices at RAE Farnborough and flew again in August 1959. After mechanical problems with the original geared Hispano-Suiza it was re-engined with a 200 hp Wolseley Viper engine in 1975. In 1987 this replacement unit had to be extensively rebuilt and the aircraft flew again in 1991.
http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth_aircraft_details.asp?ID=12
-
Rip,
(http://www.icmm.csic.es/jaalonso/velec/radiocon/SE5A%20detalles.gif)
Agree, if it wasn't on the real a/c it should be in the game.
-
look like it was pretty advanced for it's time
-
If one had a full machine shop, how much would it cost to manufacture the SE5 today?
-
Just some info on the USAS in 1918, both the USAS's 17th and 148th Aero Squadrons flew Sopwith Camels. Captain Elliot White Springs of the 148th scored 12 of his 16 victories flying Camels. It was not just an RAF fighter, and the US personnel did not just fly French aircraft. Also, many flew with the RAF, either as volunteers or as USAS personell on attached duty, and at least 4 became aces on the Se-5a.
Re the SPADs, im sure they will make it in before too long. Its too important of a type not to.
-
Nice WW1 site, http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/index.php
-
Nice WW1 site, http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/index.php
Yeah I found that site already, There are other good ones out there too...
LOL, nifty exploded view... A bicycle chain, and screw jack, LOL!!! Pretty ingenious use of really simple implements to get the desired results... Kinda impressed with the hispano engine too... Overhead cams w bevel gear and tower shaft cam drives... But no gear reduction for the prop...
Germans were experimenting with superchargers on their straight 8's near the end too...
SE5, SPAD, and Fokker D's were the last evo before the war ended.. Even tho it was only a few yrs, they were whole generations ahead of the earlier planes... War tends to accelerate things, no doubt!!!
RC
-
Rip, the Hisso did have reduction gearing for the prop but it like to destroy the gears.
-
I know the SPAD used a gear redux on the same engine... Thought they all (Hispano V8) did, but the original site that you listed, and I viewed, showed none... ????
I've read that the SPAD VII was pulled from service, a couple of years earlier, because of the gear redux problems... I believe they finally fixed it by switching from straight cut gears, to helical cut...
RC
-
From reports I have read on the net the "camel" did have some quirks that cause many "new" airman to lose their lives, many not to a "torque" problem but rather to a "carburation" problem on one of the engines used to power it.
More seasoned pilots loved the camel and found it (in their words) "a joy to fly", so we have to be careful that we don't let alot of opinion sneak into the FM of the camel, just model the FM based on the "physics" and let her go.
-
I really don't think ya have to worry Box... They are far more likely to push the easy button, than not...
RC
-
I really don't think ya have to worry Box... They are far more likely to push the easy button, than not...
RC
I really don't want that either, I would like to be as close to the real thing as we can get but not made unrealistically hard because someone "thinks" it should be
-
Just my tuppence worth...but I'd like to have started with a 1916 plane set with the later models added...er, later.
Sopwith - Pup
Fokker - Eindecker
Royal Aircraft Factory - Fe2b
Nieuport 17
Albatross - DII
Some of the two seater sloths of the day can be added at random :devil
-
The 'Fee' would be a great ride. The only 'pusher' two-seater I've ever seen modelled in a flight sim was the Vickers FB5 Gun Bus in Targetware.
No.6 Squadron RFC was the first unit to equip with the Fee, when it took all twelve FE2a 'battleplanes' built on charge from May 1915 onwards; only three were left by the end of the year. All were powered by the 120hp Austro-Daimler engine; the later and far more numerous FE2b first had the 120hp Beardmore, then the 160hp version. The FE2d was powered by the excellent Rolls Royce Eagle engine of 225hp+ but wasn't as highly regarded as the FE2b.
:cool:
-
you guys are fired, what I want are FRENCH planes :furious :D
-
you guys are fired, what I want are FRENCH planes :furious :D
OK you can have a Breguet Type 5 and a Ponnier Type L1.
-
I'm not sure the Ponnier Type L1 ever saw combat. A Breguet Type 5 with a 37mm cannon would be cool ^^
-
(http://www.randomnotes.co.uk/Aviation/img/Shut2005/SE5a.jpg)
-
Just curious which 4 aircraft would everybody have agreed on?
-
Albatros D.III, Sopwith Camel, Nieuport 24, and SPAD VII to start for me. But I'm pretty happy with what we are getting, aside from the lack of an Albatros. Hopefully it'll be among the first added in later updates.
-
Just curious which 4 aircraft would everybody have agreed on?
I'd guess that's pretty much an impossible equation. :)
-
The SE5a would be my choice ride too, Pongo. Ah, to be at Old Warden on a summer's afternoon again . . .
:aok
-
Come on, tell me she isn't gorgeous...
(http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2009/img_riseofflight_screenshot_BenyarouYoucef_20090827-2235_0001_AlbatrosD5_Udet_1350x1200x24b.jpg)
-
im excited.....when are they kicking this off?
-
im excited.....when are they kicking this off?
Supposedly before the end of 2009, however I personally would not be too surprised if it was held back a week or ...
Two...
*Dun dun dunnn*
-
Hopefully they will eventually add a Zeppelin. Would be a awsome sight to see 5 or 6 Zeppelins heading towards your base.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin
(http://www.altfrankfurt.com/Spezial/Zeppelin/ILA1909/pic/FFM_ZEPPELIN_UND_PARSEVAL_UEBER_DEM_ROEMER_1909.jpg)
-
Be an even prettier one to see them burning like a Brock's Benefit.
:cool:
-
Zeppelins are lame. They didnt see any significant action over the Front in WW1. They were used for night time raids. A sim with bunches of Zepps up is for something to play on Playstation 3 with the other hokey FPS games. I remember the Zepps in DoA, and I thought it totally ruined it.
Leave them for "Crimson Skies: WW1" expansion pack and keep them out of Aces High.
-
I remember the Zepps in DoA, and I thought it totally ruined it.
Hard to ruin something that was already a waste. :D I'm hoping the new WW1 aircraft are modeled to a higher standard than DoA.
-
At least Zeppelins might give you something to use all those pointless bomber perkies on if the arenas are linked. :)
-
wait... is there a WWI in the game now??? im confused...bring me up to date please? its been a year...
-
wait... is there a WWI in the game now??? im confused...bring me up to date please? its been a year...
Check the front page ;)
-
"I'm hoping the new WW1 aircraft are modeled to a higher standard than DoA."
Me too - especially the weak-winged DoA Bristol F2B Fighter. The real one wasn't (quite) the fastest aeroplane over the Front but it was capable of a power-off terminal-velocity dive that few contemporary single-seaters could match.
On the other hand, leave the Camel's wings as they are; they really DID fold back in a RL terminal-velocity dive. I remember a brace of Camels trying to nail me in my SE5a in DoA. I waited and watched as they grabbed alt in their Humpy Ones, then one came in to the attack. I carried on flying away as if I hadn't spotted him, meanwhile easing the stick forward and putting on a shade of bank, then steepened both angles as the bellicose one closed to firing range; hey presto, off came his wings and I had plenty of time before he hit the deck to remind him on the radio bar that it took more than just shooting to down a crafty ol' cat like me. My wingman shot down the one that had slipped below to try and catch me as I descended; between us, Wingie had fired off rather less than a drum of Lewis and I hadn't fired a single shot. Excellent scout, the jolly ol' SE5a, and almost as tough as the Biff* . . .
:cool:
* The Bristol F2B Fighter was nicknamed 'Biff' during WWI, or was just called 'the Fighter'. The term 'Brisfit' (short for 'Bristol Misfit') was applied to the old warhouse some time in the 1920s, when the type was the RAF's first standard Army Co-operation aircraft.
-
I was compairing climb rate to 5,000 then to 10,000 ft and speeds at 5k & 10k of our first 4 crates.
It looks like the F2b is on par climbing with the three fighters, but a tad faster in level flight up to 5000ft. At 5,000 ft the average speed for the 3 fighters is around 113-116mph. Level flight at 5000 ft the F2b is about 122mph. As you climb to 10,000 ft the level flight speeds drop off proportionatly. No wonder the Sopwith Snipe introduced early in 1918 dominated the D.VII.
Snipe
Speed to 5000ft 3min
Speed to 10,000ft 9min
Speed @ 10,000ft 121mph <---level at 5k may be in the 130 ish range.
I can see maybe why we don't have the S.E.5a either. Some refrences show level flight speed in the 130 ish range. 120mph at 15k from other refrences. S.E.5a would be like having a P51 in the MA with nothing but other P51's to chase it down. But then HiTech could introduce the 204mph Fokker D.VIII. Funny parallel to how level speed and climb rate by the end of WW2 became the direction of fighter development over turning manuverability. What was it the spit5 pilots were told their greatest strength was after meeting the FW190 for the first time? You can still out turn him......
I doubt our fights will start much higher than 7k due to how slow the crates fly. A good climb rate is 5 minutes to 5000 ft...... 10 to 15 minutes to 10,000 ft. Players in Aces High are not known for their patience.
-
I thought I read somewhere that the D VIII did 204km/h, not mph? Like somewhere in teh 125-130 mph range?
-
I thought I read somewhere that the D VIII did 204km/h, not mph? Like somewhere in teh 125-130 mph range?
Yes, 204km/h (127mph) for the Foker D.VIII.
Spad XIII had a top speed of 135mph. Never seen a WWI fighter with a faster list speed than the Spad XIII.
-
bustr if I may ask where are those numbers from, and what other fighters are posted?
-
1919 edition of Janes..........
-
"I thought I read somewhere that the D VIII did 204km/h, not mph? Like somewhere in teh 125-130 mph range?"
Depended on which engine was fitted, the D.VII was quite a meaty aeroplane, its intitial Benz engine gave only 160hp and the later variants had engines of 180hp; no contest on the flat against the lighter SE5a and its 200hp Wolsley Viper.
:cool:
-
Both the SE5 and D.VII had takeoff weights of about 880kg.
-
1919 edition of Janes..........
Wow, I'm very much interested about that...do you have scans of it or....the actual book?!? :eek:
-
I agree with the original poster about the odd plane choices for the first few planes. However, I do agree that there needs to be at least a two-seater in the game to actually make it a _GAME_ as opposed to just an endless chain of furballs which gets old fast. Given that they are only modeling one two-seater, it looks like all planes will be playable by all sides, which is probably as it should be; it ain't historical but if you read history, very rarely did sides in the air war in WWI (and WWII for that matter) have qualitative parity; it was a constant game of oneupsmanship that the Germans eventually lost given their poor access to resources.
Back to the original plane choices, this is just a matter of airing my opinions (since everyone else seems to be indulging one's ego in this matter) sooo...
...instead of the Camel, Tripe and D.VII and Brisfit, I probably would have chosen:
Nieuport 17 (flown by both the French and British - as well as the Italians - and later variants of the Nieuport sesquiplane were flown by the British well into 1918!).
Albatros D. III (probably the most common opponent the Nieuport 17 had during 1917).
Spad VII (also flown by both the French and the British - and the Italians - and soldiered on from '16 into '18 as well...plus, with the Spad VII and the other two planes, you get a nice range of different handling characteristics for air-craft for people to get used to and use).
Fe2b (and now...for something completely different...pretty much a British work-horse when it came to the air war in general...fighter, recce, bomber...it did it all...plus, when well handled, it could survive).
-
...if you read history, very rarely did sides in the air war in WWI (and WWII for that matter) have qualitative parity; it was a constant game of oneupsmanship that the Germans eventually lost given their poor access to resources.
If you read history, then you learn that the Fokker D.VII was the finest fighter of the war.
-
My history tells me that the Camel downed more enemy aircraft than any other WWI aircraft type, but then it was in service over three times as long as the D.VII. The D.VII was certainly a very good fighter - and long-lived too, several examples serving as trainers with the Royal Netherlands Air Force well into the 1930s - but it wasn't omnipotent.
Anyway, no doubt about the best and longest-lived two-seater of WWI, 'twas the Bristol F2B Fighter.
:cool:
-
Anyway, no doubt about the best and longest-lived two-seater of WWI, 'twas the Bristol F2B Fighter.
Actually that's very much arguable. ;)
I think Brequet 14 was very much comparable to the Bristol F2b when rivaling from the "best two-seater of the war - award".
-
If you read history, then you learn that the Fokker D.VII was the finest fighter of the war.
Depends on what engine the Fokker had installed.
-
I don't buy the "shot down the most therefore best," argument. Or do you think the 109 was the best fighter of WW2?
-
Actually that's very much arguable. ;)
I think Brequet 14 was very much comparable to the Bristol F2b when rivaling from the "best two-seater of the war - award".
The Breguet 14 kept being built after the war and set a number of records, scouted a lot of new air corridors for the mail (Mermoz&co). Udet was shot by a Breguet 14 also :salute
That plane made a bit of history for sure.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Breguet_14_3_vues.jpg/720px-Breguet_14_3_vues.jpg)
-
The Camel was on its way out by war's end as a fighter; it was too slow and not effective at high altitude.
However, with that being said, I think it's debatable whether the D. VII was the finest fighter of the war. The best Entente fighters at the time it entered service were the Spad XIII and the SE5a, both of which could outrun it (or run it down), thus allowing smart pilots to fight on their own terms. The Snipe, which was about as fast as the D. VII, but much more maneuverable, was about to enter service in numbers on the British end of things when the armistice came. Given the relative paucity of resources that Germany had access to, i.e. a/c engines, a/c quality wood, lubricant, etc., the German a/c industry probably would not have been able to deliver a fighter that could beat the Spad, the SE5a or the Snipe. Factor in the relative number of a/c that the German a/c industry could pump out compared to how many the Entente powers could produce in the same time frame, I still stand by my argument that in the game of technical oneupsmanship, the Germans lost. The D. VII gave them relative parity, not superiority but that parity would've probably vanished with time as things like the ropey Hissos on the Spads had their kinks worked out (thus allowing the XIII to fully replace the VII), the Snipe entering service in numbers came to fruition.
-
The 300hp+ class of fixed radials like the 320hp dragonfly and 12cyl inline engines such as the 300hp Hispanio-Suza had just begun to be reliable in British aviation by the end of 1918. From my Jane's 1919 it was evident all of the fighter producers in Great Britan had prototypes that flew in the 130's mph at 10k and climbed to 5k in 3 minutes. The Germans had the D.VIII parasol which flew 127mph at 10k with a 110hp rotary engine. Its speed being due to less drag by having one wing and no external wires. But by the end of 1918 Germany was running out of technology while Great Britan and France had just warmed up for round two.
-
The A.B.C. Dragonfly engine was an unmitigated disaster according to every source I've read. Ordered in large numbers before proper testing proved it a dud and the specified powerplant for many of the new aircraft types being developed at the end of the war, it had insufficient finning and constantly overheated. Perhaps you're thinking of the Siddeley Jaguar 14-cylinder two-row radial engine developed by S.D. Heron which powered the Siddeley S.R.2 Siskin that became the Armstrong-Whitworth Siskin, built in large numbers for the R.A.F. during the 1920s and early 1930s.
:cool:
-
Or do you think the 109 was the best fighter of WW2?
1/3rd of Dweebs think so, a further 1/3rd of dweebs say it is the P-51, and the final 1/3rd claim all that matters is pilot skill, even when its C-47 vs. Tempest.
-
3/3rds of all dweebs agree the last 1/3rd is the most obnoxious.
Nothing more annoying then 'ITS TEH PILOT!' types when you're trying to discuss aircraft .
-
I'd thought the first third would go with the spit16 :devil