What's the magic flying WW1 Aircraft over WW2 aircraft?

[outfctrl 0]

Ok, everyone knows I am new to this biplane experience. I have flown The f4U corsair, F6F Hellcat and numerous others in IL2 1946.

In FSX I have flown airliners, helicopters, Piper cubs and other aircraft. Most of these aircraft are very complicated to some extent and require allot skill to control them.

 

In OFF, is it very easy or does it require allot of skill to fly? I mean in IL2, there is the radiator, combat flaps, mixture controls, prop pitch, etc, etc.

 

What is the magic that draws people to the simple biplane? I guess I will find out when I get the game. I was just curious on some of your thoughts.

Edited August 19, 2009 by outfctrl

[JimAttrill 24]

Well, the main thing is all about skill. The thing is that you don't have a lot of guns, you have little power, and you don't have things lilke flaps or airbrakes or almost anything else.

 

You pick your aeroplane (and some deliberately pick the worst ones!) and try to fly it. I am flying a BE2c which is considered one of the worst, but I want to see what I can do with it!

[Luftace 0]

I find that in most craft (Actually, have only flown for the Germans so far) I end up using a lot more rudder to do maneuvours, especially turns, than I do flying ww2 aircraft. Depending on the aircraft type, aggressive/acrobatic flying can almost always be accomplished in a much smaller distance due to slower flying speed and generally greater control response (There's a lot of wing area for lift with 2-3 wings). As far as flaps, landing gear position, arresting hook, sliding canopies, hydraulic pressure, etc.... Those have yet to be invented and/or implemented! HTH a bit.

[outfctrl 0]

Well, the main thing is all about skill. The thing is that you don't have a lot of guns, you have little power, and you don't have things lilke flaps or airbrakes or almost anything else.

 

You pick your aeroplane (and some deliberately pick the worst ones!) and try to fly it. I am flying a BE2c which is considered one of the worst, but I want to see what I can do with it!

 

No flaps? I thought some of the aircraft do.

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

well the problem is flying itself, not to stall, lose your engine, go into an unrecoverable spin, and generally stay alive against enemy Flak/Archie, ground machine guns and winged adversaries that are somehow much better than in other WW1 sims i have played. As well looking at the scenery is really nice, and i tend to oversee enemies often ...

 

It just depends on how hard you want to play - if you play "dead is dead" you will have a hard time to survive even 17 hours of flying time. If you want to play as hard as it gets this means no exterior view of your plane, no padlock view towards the enemy or vice versa (you will have a hard time to even recognize an enemy plane by its national markings in time), navigating via maps, no radar etc. etc., and your only help would be TrackIR.

 

As you asked about RoF and OFF - i do not have RoF yet, but intend to buy it when i can buy the box in a store here in Germany. The flight mechanics and physics itself in RoF seem to be indeed more modern/refined, but again for what i have read the flight models of the individual planes and their differences do not really reflect reality - however - i will wait and see. From the landscape and feel of the situation of a war i doubt RoF is better - from the Youtube vids and screenshots it looks like a model railroad landscape, sunny, shiny and clean. Hard to describe when you never played OFF.

 

Anyway i think you will like OFF, just be aware you need CFS3 for playing OFF - if you still have the choice go for the CFS3 UBI DVD, with that you will not even need to install CFS3 - just insert the disk during the OFF installation when asked, for a few seconds, and that's it. If you certainly like to try out CFS3 you can install it, there are some nice WW2 mods around, but i guess you will be spoiled by IL2 and its successors - much better in my opinion.

 

P.S. You have air brakes in the Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter or so i think. As well you can trim your plane if you ahve an SE5a, but not so in other planes of the time. You CAN adjust trim in the others, but this is considered as cheating ahem ..

 

Good luck and have fun,

Catfish

Edited August 19, 2009 by Wels

[FastCargo 412]

Well, asking a question like this is kind of like asking why folks prefer one color over another.

 

That being said...there is a certain romance associated with WWI air combat, a sort of 'honorable duel' in the skies because the fliers at the time were a rare breed and the whole concept of air combat was relatively new. Verses in later periods where the science and art of airborne killing had become much more prevalent (not to say there wasn't a bunch of killing in the skies in WWI).

 

As someone else mentioned, it is almost all skill to be able to fly and fight effectively in these aircraft of which a lot of them weren't much more than ultralights with guns. A lot of them had nasty characteristics that you couldn't power or fly out of...and unlike aircraft of later periods, if you made a mistake and killed your energy early, you were toast on a stick against anyone with a decent amount of skill.

 

FC

[godzilla1985 0]

Not much I can add here that hasn't been covered already. For myself I find it more of a challange to master these machines in combat then anything that came after WWI ended in a flight sim. Considering these warbirds were only less then a decade out after the Wright Bro's flight is pretty amazing in itself. The biggest change for me was getting use to the power to weight ratio, unlike the AC from late WW2 you cannot muscle yourself out of a sticky situation with most AC from this period. So you gotta kind of pre-think your attack and maybe your escape, of course you know what they say about the best laid plans The only thing that kinda levels the field is in most cases your adversary has the same disavantages as you.

[Olham 164]

The further aircraft got developed, the more energy they used/produced.

The Lockheed Starfighter was almost a rocket with wings; modern jet fighters almost all can climb vertical

on their jet engines.

 

WW1 air combat is about craft with little forward pull energy. Climb was a combi of forward energy (motor)

and lift (wing surfaces). More speed could only be gained by getting the nose below horizon.

So what you find here, is much more about less energetic and more lift-dependend flying.

And it makes sense, that these slower craft do use rudder a lot for turning and manoeuvering.

 

WW1 air combat is much more about the art of sailing, than about the art of motorboat racing, so to say.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Olham

[cptroyce 0]

outfctrl - >> What is the magic that draws people to the simple biplane? <<

 

Your question seems more philosophical then technical..so I would say it's the difference between riding a motorcycle and driving a sedan. That's my 2 cents ;>)

 

Regards,

Royce

[Pips 5]

It's flying in it's most basic form. The same aeronautical rules apply, but you have to do it more by feel and sensation. There are no instruments to speak of (certainly not what you are used to), no autopilot, no ground control, no radar, nada. The aeroplanes of the period possess reasonable power (although some are really no more than powered gliders), but energy constraints greatly affect what you can and can't do. And that's just flying around. It becomes even more noticeable in combat. Some aeroplanes can't manage a loop, others break-up in dives, some are so slow you can't run away (or even catch the enemy without a decided altitude advantage). And if you choose to fly certain two-seaters you had better have your will up to date. Because your career is most likely to be extremely short!

 

There are various cheats you can use in the game eg tactical display, maps, warp, pop-up instruments (F5) to see where you are, who's close by, covering distance etc, but if you resort to those then you may as well fly a more modern sim. To me they defeat the purpose of flying such primitive aeroplanes. Mind you there are many who would disagree with that sentiment - it's very much what pushes your buttons.

 

I get the most joy from trying to make it as close to historical as possible. So when I fly it's in real time by compass bearings only, and I try hard to learn to identify the key features in my local area of operations so I can fly as much by looking at the ground layout and features as anything else (which, thanks to the beautifully rendered terrain, is quite feasible). But it can be pretty damn hard if you've been involved in a swirling dogfight and then trying to get back home. I've often had to land at a friendly aerodrome to find out where I am and get my bearings, then take-off and make my way home. That was quite a common occurrance during the War. I've even (in the early days) landed at an enemy aerodrome - that happened twice! Much to my embrassment! But it's all part of the fun I get from this wonderful sim.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I get as much fun from simply flying the aeroplanes in this sim as I do actually fighting them. At the end of some missions (my longest one to date was around two hours) I'm totally exhausted, hands cramped, back sore etc. And it's great! It gives me the connection I'm seeking with the period - I've studied it all my life and now I can gain a bearest glimpse of what it was like to fly during the Great War. And I find that extremely satisfying.

 

If you just want to get up there and shoot planes down then this sim will let you do that. In spades. Easily on a parr with Il-2 and others for combat intensity. But perhaps, given that you enjoy flying for it's own sake (which is probably why you fly FSX), you may just find more in this sim than other combat sims you've flown in the past.

[Oswald Bastable 0]

I enjoy the alt the planes usually fly at and the speed, but mostly it is the romance of the era.

As radio was developed the less and less was it an individual fight.

And since I am using an old force feedback flightstick it is fun to feel the planes maneuver to your commands.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Oswald Bastable

[Duce Lewis 3]

What is the magic that draws people to the simple biplane? I guess I will find out when I get the game. I was just curious on some of your thoughts.

I cut my sim teeth online in F22

It was exciting but seemed more technologic than flying

The engagement distances were quite large and your opponent wasn't much more than a stick figure in a target triangle

A WWI bird isn't much more thn Stick, Rudder, and twin guns

Takes a lot of knowledge of your and your opponents machines and just pure flying skill

And engagement distances ..you can almost reach out and touch him

While linear speed is slow, angular turning speeds are very fast due to the extremely small turning radius'

Leads to a lotta "Whoa, where'd he come from" moments

[Rickitycrate 10]

Why WWI and why OFF. WWI is where it all begins for air warfare. These are the crates and the pilots that were the boyhood dreams and heroes of the men that flew in WWII and beyond. The crates are so fragile and underpowered, as aviation is yet new, so to my mind there is a sense of pioneering. Technology and tactics are evolving. In the 4 years of conflict technology pressed on rapidly and the aircraft reflect the progress. The control of the pilot in the open cockpit at speeds that allow to see the world about you and the time often to think ahead and plan attacks. The close-in fighting that allows to see the whites of thier eyes. You are more intimate with your enemy. Many are the times when I land safely only to regather myself, I sweat and sigh and shake my head. Can it be that I survived the conflict? Oh to fly again but first to collect myself. Skill plays a major part but luck in some guise often makes the difference. OFF BH&H makes all this so satisifyingly real.

[Bullethead 12]

What is the magic that draws people to the simple biplane? I guess I will find out when I get the game. I was just curious on some of your thoughts.

 

For me, it's the vulnerability of it all. The machine itself is suspect in the best of times and flimsy under duress. There's no armor, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and nothing but a few matchsticks bearing your weight in high-G maneuvers. You have laughable firepower in absolute terms, but it's quite capable of wreaking havoc on contemporary targets. Plus, I like the lack of O2 and heat at high altitude, with only the sting of the rain and the rush of the wind keeping me half-way conscious.

[angles1100 0]

I think Obi-Wan said it best , "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" .

 

 

cheers

[OvS 8]

Close combat... it's more personal, especially when you identify an Ace... then it's real personal.

 

OvS

[Hasse Wind 46]

I guess I love the spirit of aviation pioneering about those early 20th century airplanes - everything was so new back then, new ideas came and went constantly with many unsuccessful designs but also some real gems among them. I admire the guts of those men who were willing not only to fly in those primitive planes, but to fight in them. The whole business back then was much more personal than with modern supersonic fighters with their fancy radars, computers, missiles and all the other Star Wars stuff. Primitive but often so beautiful and elegant aircraft, a pilot, and a machine gun or two - that's all it takes to take off and go looking for trouble above the Western Front.

 

WW1 also interests me more as a conflict than any later wars. It was the war that basically shaped the world we now live in - WW2 was in so many ways nothing but a continuation of the Great War in even larger scale.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I just enjoy flying simulators period.

But, WW1 has a fascination that cannot be captured in any other era of flight (imho)

[JohnGresham 0]

I think Obi-Wan said it best , "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" .

 

 

cheers

 

Hmmm, that's a point of view I'd take issue with. There's an elegance and a certain romanticism about the rudimentary nature of the aircraft and the idea of personal combat in the air as opposed to the mass slaughter in the filth of the trenches. However, the scale of slaughter on the ground, the poision gas, the relentless offensive tactics of the RFC in the face of appalling loses and no parachutes for pilots seems (to me) to contradict the idea that it was a more civilized age. Perhaps that's part of the fascination the era continues to have. It's a conflict that's caught between the old and the new, a moment of tremdous innovation and change that unfortunately produces a new bloody, uttlerly ruthless warfare and a scale of destruction never before witnessed or imagined.

Edited August 20, 2009 by JohnGresham

[SirMike1983 3]

The WWII aircraft handle stress maneuvers much better. The stronger of these biplanes tend to do ok up to a point. The most fragile aircraft will overstress easily and sustain damage at speeds over 110 mph.

 

The fighting is done at fearfully close range-- I do most of my work within 75 yards of the enemy aircraft, often even within 50.

 

Fewer vitals in the enemy-- there's a lot of "dead" space in an enemy aircraft where the bullets don't do much damage because they just pass through one side and out the other. You have to get close and aim for some vital piece of the aircraft or directly at the pilot himself.

 

It's often quite clear you're dealing with an enemy ace because many of them have their own glaring custom color schemes. You probably will learn who precisely is flying the other plane, and it's your job to bring him down.

 

Low level machine guns are more deadly. You're probably moving pretty slow, so exposure to ground guns is worse than in a WW2 game.

 

Turn fighting plays a bigger role, though not the entire role. WW2 is very much about boom and zoom for many planes. WW1 has some boom and zoom planes, but many fights are simply reduced to turning like mad until you can get a shot off.

 

As said before, no parachute. There is no escape once it's going down.

 

Take offs and landings are easier in general. Some aircraft are tricky, but they have much shorter take offs and landings than WW2 aircraft. But once in taxi, ground handling often sucks and some of them really like to try to flip on taxi.

 

Rotary engines are unlike anything else. They aren't the monsters some make them out to be, but they do add a level of difficult in their torque.

 

Missions are very different from WW2. In WW2 you often get "heavy bomber escort" and the like. In WW1 must of the grunt work is done by medium-sized 2 seaters. You won't see the high altitude level bombing runs by heavies. It's basically scouts and two seaters. Heavies existed but were not nearly as important as in WW2.

 

Balloon missions-- in WW2 ground attack is usually on a base or troop column or the like. In WW1 you get these, but you also can be assigned to shoot down stationary balloons. It sounds easier than it actually is.

 

The front-- in WW2 games the front moves a lot. In WW1 the front moves but stays put within a few miles in many areas. Flying over it is to fly over a shooting gallery. Every gun, AA, machine gun and even individual soldiers will start shooting up at you. Once you cross it, you have to cross back over to get home. There is no "going around the hot area" like in some WW2 scenarios.

 

Rear gunners are even deadlier than WW2. WW2 aircraft usually have a fair bit of speed difference between them. But WW1 aircraft are all pretty slow, and even the fastest is only 50 mph faster than the slowest of them in OFF. The result is that the rear gunners will have a pretty good chance of defending their aircraft because you don't have a huge speed difference in many cases. It's tricky, but you can get them still.

 

It's easier to ditch. WW2 aircraft are heavy and fast compared to these. With the short take off and landing, it's actually easier to ditch these in a field than belly land a WW2 plane. You can actually land some these in the backyards of houses (Pup, N.11 for example can glide right in slow and just land in someone's yard).

[outfctrl 0]

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and feelings on this. I had no idea that a game like this can mirror the real life of a pilot back during that time period.

I hope I will get hooked and start experiencing even half of what most of you have showed.

 

*Salute*

[Norman Prince 0]

Hello all. Love flying flight simulations. WOFF is a great simulation. ROF is also but its campaign is weak. Flight characteristic are good. Flying in WW1 was hard as you all have reported. I would like to add that in 1914 most of the planes flew like the wright brothers except for BE2A. It was underpowered  and and was much improved in the BE2c. The farmen and gunbus was much like the WB,s planes. They flew poorly with little power. You had to dive in short burst to maintain proper flight!! First Flight is a great simulation to show how difficult flight was in the beginning with underpowered engines.This skill was used by pilots early on and the flight models on realistic are perfectly develop. It takes some skill as these planes were deadly to fly as the Wright found out!!! The BE2c was very stable to fly and a marvel of its time (pre war). The Nieuport 11 was the first great rotor plane was easy to handlle and (as with BE2c) did not use wing wrapping (slow at controling) which made the early planes hard to control. ACH2 was a great pusher plane which control well.The problem with pushers was that te engine in the rear made a very good target for WW1 planes with low firepower.

[JFM 18]

For me there is no magic flying WW1 planes over WW2. The magic is in the flying itself, whether it be a C-152 or F-8 Crusader. WW1 is fun, and I'm well ensconced within its history, but in many ways for me it doesn't even come close to having the same appeal as USN PTO CV ops in WW2. Many WW1 planes are beautiful--the Albatros Ds are some of my favorite planes of all time!--but a Sopwith Camel is never going to turn my head like an F4U Corsair. A few years back I was visiting the Aeroplane Collection in Pasa Robles, CA, and while seeing the Camel flying was awesome, I could barely tear myself away from the TBM Avenger parked on the ramp.  

[Hauksbee 103]

What is the magic that draws people to the simple biplane?

Simple?

[JimAttrill 24]

Thanks Norman Prince for bumping this thread.   It is interesting to see what people said about OFF back in 2009! 

 

And it's also interesting how much more complicated flying fighter aircraft has become since the 1960s.   While not a pilot I worked on the engines of Hawker Hunter FGA9's and the first Harriers (GR1's in the RAF, AV8A's in the USMC).  It was all mostly simple then, no 'glass cockpit' and no guided missiles either but unguided rockets and 30mm ADEN cannon.  There was a moving map which mostly worked (it had real film inside and was powered by rubber bands and stuff).  The pilots had to spend a few minutes setting it up against a pole over the other side of the runway.  No radar and the Inertial Navigation couldn't be setup on a carrier as the thing was moving all the time.  I read a whole report recently on the gear fitted to the AV8B's nowadays and am amazed that one pilot can cope with all this stuff.   And what with the composite wing etc it only looks a bit like the original.   It does seem however, that the engine is the same as it always was, just a tad more powerful.