JimAttrill 24 Posted July 26, 2009 (edited) Flying my Be2c of 4Sqn 1915. Over the German lines, lots of EIIIs appeared, at about the same height - 6000ft. I managed to hit both the aces, and others, but eventually they were flying below 1000 ft and after being shot at a lot by mg fire a 2000 I wouldn't go down there. Being down to a few rounds left, I legged it back to the British lines. Both my wingmates with me as well. I don't think anyone on either side got shot down in this engagement. I quite like the Be2c - at least it doesn't spin with my hamfisted controlling. And it seems to be more manoeveable than the EIII, which is its only opponent at this early stage of the war. A good learning tool, I reckon. ps I am chicken because I am flying Did at 100% and trying to stay alive... Edited July 26, 2009 by JimAttrill Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldemar Kurtz 1 Posted July 26, 2009 Flying my Be2c of 4Sqn 1915. Over the German lines, lots of EIIIs appeared, at about the same height - 6000ft. I managed to hit both the aces, and others, but eventually they were flying below 1000 ft and after being shot at a lot by mg fire a 2000 I wouldn't go down there. Being down to a few rounds left, I legged it back to the British lines. Both my wingmates with me as well. I don't think anyone on either side got shot down in this engagement. I quite like the Be2c - at least it doesn't spin with my hamfisted controlling. And it seems to be more manoeveable than the EIII, which is its only opponent at this early stage of the war. A good learning tool, I reckon. ps I am chicken because I am flying Did at 100% and trying to stay alive... even though the BE2c is actually faster than the Fokker E.III in the game (which ain't historicallly accurate)... that's still pretty good! Sholto Douglas pulled off the same thing-- hedge-hopping his way to safety and narrowly evading Boelcke and Immelmann in the fall of 1915. in fact he was flying so wildly and putting his plane through all manner of heavy manuevers that his observer actually threw up and collapsed in the cockpit. that moment was apparently dramatic enough where Boelcke thought he'd killed the observer! (guess he wasn't close enough to tell the difference between blood and vomit!)... .... so maybe you'll take over the whole Royal Air Force one day! ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 26, 2009 Haha, Jim - wait until you fly 120 % "Full-DiD" (no TAC, no Labels, no Warp)! On today's patrol, I SAW the Flak above Douai, I CHECKED around, but couldn't find anyone. And then I get hit - tactactac!!! - two S.E.5a, right out of the big white sun! I was lucky I could crashland the crate and survive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JimAttrill 24 Posted July 26, 2009 Olham, I think to run 120% you have to have Trackir which I can't afford at the moment. But I'm running as realistic as I can and stay alive. I must say the Tac is not useful once one has met the other aircraft and it might be a good idea to have a joystick button programmed to switch it off. I know the Be2c quirk is a death trap but at least it is easy to fly, unlike the dreaded Bristol Scout which just falls out of the sky. And last night I flew through Tower Bridge in an SE5A of 56 sqn! (As an aside, I worked on the ex-54 sqn Hawker Hunter FGA9 back in '68 which had done the same thing. The pilot was cashiered/resigned of course). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Polovski 459 Posted July 28, 2009 Don't forget to compare like altitudes and setups for top speeds, often figures are quoted only at one or two altitudes. or with no altitude given. Various sources Be2c 90mph, doesn't say with 1 crew or 2, what altitude.. EIII 87.5MPH.. what altitude though, ground level, 1000ft?, 6500 feet? Others say 72mph BE2c at 6500feet... so what about ground alt again what criteria? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 28, 2009 That brings up the question: can we get those "missing" data from the replicas of today? Or do they have too different engines? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Polovski 459 Posted July 28, 2009 Good question, very few are 100% replicas. Often engines are different, or other parts of the construction. Perhaps in some cases yes, but there are variances even now for safety, or engines replaced with radial not rotary or whatever. Often these craft are not stressed (to save wear/damage/failure) as much as they would have been in combat conditions I have seen various detailed test results from the period but again even these are sometimes inconclusive. For one for example of a Pup, the top speed varied due to conditions over several tests even with the same craft, or some days they omitted certain heights in the middle of the tests, or had changed something which would have been useful to compare. When looking into the top speeds closely often you find real discrepancies not just in true speed or indicated but altitude mentioned, or the speed is just one altitude with no proof this is the very fastest across all possible heights, with full combat load or minimum stripped down low fuel etc by the manufacturer. It's not just "speed" there's a whole load of other test data needed to compare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 28, 2009 Yes, easy to believe. They where yet at the beginning of the whole technological development. I could well imagine, that two craft of the same type may have differed, or one craft at different wheather (cold, hot, humid) or altitudes. I assume you got this site before, but if not, maybe it can provide you all with additional data. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch2-2.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
