WWI Plane choice

[Wmaker]

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.

[Anaxogoras]

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 ), it's no wonder.

[RipChord929]

Everything I ever read, said the Camel was a dangerous airplane... Short and unstable, with tremendous engine torque... Crashed alot of experienced pilots...

RC

[Karnak]

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.

[RipChord929]

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

[Treize69]

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 ), 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.

[Anaxogoras]

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.

[Squire]

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.

[RipChord929]

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

[Noir]

yep lets talk about trimming, do you think we'll get the combat trim on these birds ?

[RipChord929]

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

[Noir]

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.

[Anaxogoras]

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.

[Treize69]

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.

[Squire]

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.