"What is in the Picture?" - A P4 Screenshot Quiz

[33LIMA 972]

Almost correct, LIMA - but what do you say, when I tell you, that in most Aviatik C-types, the observer was sitting behind the pilot?

So, I wanted the exact type numbering/name.

 

I'm confused now, i thought "Aviatik CI" was exact enough; maybe I should have typed it 'C I'. The CIa reportedly had the pilot in front and the observer behind, like other C types including the Aviatik CIII. If you want a serial # of an actual aircraft, C1952/15 is the serial # of the CI pictured in Gray & Thetford's book.

[Olham 164]

LIMA, I must do some more research. It is well possible, that either the English or the German WIKIPEDIA

contains wrong information. The German WIKI says, that the gunner was placed in front of the pilot ONLY

in the C.Ia, and that it was changed on all later models.

But in Rosebud's Early Aviation website, it looks the other way round, just like you say.

 

I'll see through the Windsock files now.

[33LIMA 972]

Thetford & Gray provide 2 pics said to be of the C1 with the MG rails visible on either side of the forward 'pit, and one pic, said to be of the C Ia, without the rails and with what looks like a pintle MG mount for the rear 'pit.

 

Actually I see from their pic of the later C III that it also has the rails and the observer in front.

 

Anyway depending on which source is right the plane is an Aviatik C I or a C Ia, whichever one had the observer in front; look forward to finding out which source is correct!

 

Reminds me of this story about an Aviatik CI C227/16 (or CIa?), some great detail pics; the P Grosz letter refers to it as a CI and it has the MG rails so i'm inclined to think Grey & Thetford are right and that it's the C I, not the Ia, which has the observer in front;

 

http://www.bamfbamrs.be/Bamrs/Aviatik-en.htm

Edited April 26, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Olham 164]

33LIMA, you were correct there, and WIKIPEDIA (German) was wrong. What a bummer - the English WIKI has it correct!!!

 

I am not an expert on WW1 aircraft, like many others here are. So I took the info for granted.

I shouldn't have gone for an aircraft I don't know ANYTHING about except for that it's a German two-seater. My mistake.

 

You were correct with all answers and now it is your turn, Sir.

[33LIMA 972]

OK let's go for the somewhat-unkindly-nicknamed 'Spinning Incinerator':

 

 

1. What precisely do the red and white outer interplane struts on this DH2 signify?

 

2. What was really unusual about the production DH2's windscreen (leaving aside field modifications, I should say)?

 

3. What was name of the unfortunate pilot who presented DH2 protoype 4732 to the Germans in August 1915, albeit unwillingly, upside down and slightly bent?

Edited April 26, 2011 by 33LIMA

[33LIMA 972]

Wot, no takers? Are all the DeHaviland afficionados on leave in Blighty, camped out along the royal Wedding route or what? Surely ('Don't call me Shirley!!!') somebody must at least be able to answer one of these?

[Lewie 7]

Wot, no takers? Are all the DeHaviland afficionados on leave in Blighty, camped out along the royal Wedding route or what? Surely ('Don't call me Shirley!!!') somebody must at least be able to answer one of these?

 

1.I seem to recall that the strut colors were Wing leader stripes.

 

2. The windscreen, from what I've seen is largely absent, now if this was originally because the early DH2 came with a flexible mount, ( i.e. you flew with one hand on the joystick and could aim the Lewis with the other, within a limited forward arc..) I have no idea? I assume it was removed to make servicing the Lewis easier?

 

3. I don't know this one..

[33LIMA 972]

1. No, not wing leader's stripes, in this case anyway; it's not too hard to guess, especially if you bear in mind this was from a time before markings which served this particular purpose, were standardised by the RFC in the form most people would recognise; that's a fairly strong clue but I still want the specific thing the red & white stripes signify, not just the general.

 

2. There was a windscreen, it's where it was factory-fitted, was the unusual thing, which may not be apparent from pics, especially given the level of field modification to the DH2's 'wobbly mount'.

 

3. Bit obscure I agree but nobody told me these things had to be easy to find! Will settle instead for the name of the future RFC ace whom recent research indicates was claimed shot down by MvR iwhen flying a DH2 aka "Vickers" but was actually taking evading action because of stoppage in his Lewis.

[Lewie 7]

1. No, not wing leader's stripes, in this case anyway; it's not too hard to guess, especially if you bear in mind this was from a time before markings which served this particular purpose, were standardised by the RFC in the form most people would recognise; that's a fairly strong clue but I still want the specific thing the red & white stripes signify, not just the general.

 

2. There was a windscreen, it's where it was factory-fitted, was the unusual thing, which may not be apparent from pics, especially given the level of field modification to the DH2's 'wobbly mount'.

 

3. Bit obscure I agree but nobody told me these things had to be easy to find! Will settle instead for the name of the future RFC ace whom recent research indicates was claimed shot down by MvR iwhen flying a DH2 aka "Vickers" but was actually taking evading action because of stoppage in his Lewis.

 

I have to admit I'm a bit out of my league here, I think the DH2 outer interplanes were flight group colors such as "A", "B" and "C" and the leader had these on his particular aircraft, was this a first for the RFC? I'm afraid Lou will show up and make this a Jeopardy joke..

[33LIMA 972]

I have to admit I'm a bit out of my league here, I think the DH2 outer interplanes were flight group colors such as "A", "B" and "C" and the leader had these on his particular aircraft, was this a first for the RFC? I'm afraid Lou will show up and make this a Jeopardy joke..

 

 

On reflection you may be right about the struts signifying Flight within squadron, as there seem to be hints of that; my source is JM Bruce in Profile Publications #91 who says the red & white struts were 24 Squardon's 'individual marking' (and that by the Somme Battle their DHs were doped khaki overall and that the squadron also used that coulor to produce a 'saw-tooth' effect either side of the nacelle's underside).

 

The unusual thing about the windscreen is that it was fitted not onto the nacelle, but onto the pintle-mounted Lewis MG (at the near end of the barrel jacket tho some moved it leven with the spade grips)- as can be made out in this pic, amongst others:

 

 

The pilot who came down behind German lines in a prototype was Capt R Maxwell-Pike; the one whom MvR may have claimed by mistake was no less than Jimmy McCudden (according to Franks et al in 'Under the Guns of the Red Baron').

 

Do you want yo go next?

[Creaghorn 10]

@LIMA

 

the mccudden question we had already, sir

look here

 

1. which pilot once decided to try a loop in it, when in the vertical he became anxious and pushed the stick back forward to level it out again. in that negative G-force moment the spare lewis drums fell out of the panel and flew directly into the prop behind him, damaging three of the four blades. he barely managed to land safely.

2. the very same pilot once in end of 1916 run with his squad into a formation of albatros DII's. one particular agressive german set on his tail shooting at him. he tried to evade by halflooping downwards and other tricks, but the german was hanging on his back like glued and shot his AC to pieces until he went down spinning out of control. surprisingly the brit leveled out again at treetop level and made it back home. the german claimed his victim as a victory and got it confirmed (he didn't see him crash but seemed to be very obvious for him and his mates that the brit crashed). what's the name of the german pilot?

3. what was the reason in the first place (at least when it appeared at the front), the brits used pushers as scouts instead of tractors?

[33LIMA 972]

@LIMA

 

the mccudden question we had already, sir

look here

 

1. which pilot once decided to try a loop in it, when in the vertical he became anxious and pushed the stick back forward to level it out again. in that negative G-force moment the spare lewis drums fell out of the panel and flew directly into the prop behind him, damaging three of the four blades. he barely managed to land safely.

2. the very same pilot once in end of 1916 run with his squad into a formation of albatros DII's. one particular agressive german set on his tail shooting at him. he tried to evade by halflooping downwards and other tricks, but the german was hanging on his back like glued and shot his AC to pieces until he went down spinning out of control. surprisingly the brit leveled out again at treetop level and made it back home. the german claimed his victim as a victory and got it confirmed (he didn't see him crash but seemed to be very obvious for him and his mates that the brit crashed). what's the name of the german pilot?

3. what was the reason in the first place (at least when it appeared at the front), the brits used pushers as scouts instead of tractors?

 

1. Well that;s JTB McCudden again, in the afternoon of 9 November 1916, when after the bang he looked around and saw that '...the lower right-hand boom had been cut clean in two...and that all that was holding my tail on was a diagonal 10-cwt tail-boom bracing wire.' Hairy, or wot?

 

2. That was the morning of the above incident I think, when McCudden's DH2 took 24 hits apparently, presumably during the big air battle during the bombing raid on Vraucourt. Jasta 2 didn't claim any of 29 Squadron's DH2s so it must have been a Jasta 1 pilot, guessing Hans von Keudell who is credited with a DH2 in the morning plus another in the afternoon.

 

3. Not quite clear on this question; obviously, pushers like the MF7 'longhorn' were used by the RFC before the likes of the DH2 or FE2, and in the case of the Farman, field of fire for an MG was not a design or procurement factor, the pusher layout would have been seen more as offering a good field of view for observation, the main role envisaged for early planes. If by scouts you mean fighters, then I'd say the reason for the pusher layout WAS for the obvious answer - for the field of fire, since the first British pusher deployed to the front (Feb '15) as a fighter/scout was the Vickers FB5 'gunbus' and its pusher design was adopted for the field of fire, clear of a tractor's airscrew, not of observation.

Edited April 29, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Lewie 7]

On reflection you may be right about the struts signifying Flight within squadron, as there seem to be hints of that; my source is JM Bruce in Profile Publications #91 who says the red & white struts were 24 Squardon's 'individual marking' (and that by the Somme Battle their DHs were doped khaki overall and that the squadron also used that coulor to produce a 'saw-tooth' effect either side of the nacelle's underside).

 

The unusual thing about the windscreen is that it was fitted not onto the nacelle, but onto the pintle-mounted Lewis MG (at the near end of the barrel jacket tho some moved it leven with the spade grips)- as can be made out in this pic, amongst others:

 

 

The pilot who came down behind German lines in a prototype was Capt R Maxwell-Pike; the one whom MvR may have claimed by mistake was no less than Jimmy McCudden (according to Franks et al in 'Under the Guns of the Red Baron').

 

Do you want yo go next?

 

No, I'll let someone else take a the next one. That's interesting about that windscreen, as that is AVRO's 504 prototype wind screen, which was used on a lot of different aircraft during the war. I can see why they removed it. Is that RFC 29 squad colors on the Vintage Aviator Dh2? I just started my 3rd pilot with them, and it seems the early DH2 is at a distinct disadvantage to the Roland CII's I can't believe how aggressive the game AI flys them, rolls and loops?

[33LIMA 972]

I don't know what the Vintage Aviator's DH2's markings represent, have no info on 7855. Blandford's 'Fighters 1914-19' illustrates a Red 4, serial 5967, of 29 Sqdn at Bertangles with red & white outer interplane struts but it has a khaki upper & front nacelle and plain doped linen wing uppers.

 

I only have OFF Phase 2 at the moment and its AI 2-seaters seem at times like they're flown by drunks who think they're flying UFOs. I had the impression Phase 3 improved on this but wonder from your description if there is still room for further improvement here. It was certainly there in CFS3, tho perhaps less pronounced with the WW2 planes. I remember finding out that the AI planes in CFS3 were believed to fly at unladen weights - no fuel or ammo anyway - so they were just too agile in any given situation. Became obvious when Me110s could out-manoeuvre Hurricanes etc. I came to the conclusion. shared with others at the time, that what was needed was AI-only planes with additional 'ballast' in their data files. I tried this out on a 3rd-party Me-110 and it definitely produced what I thought a more historically-accurate result. I never got around to doing more as I like to fly CFS3 as a fighter-bomber sim and was never impressed with it for dogfighting anyway. I daresay the Roland C IIs were good machines, Ball callled them "the best German machine now" but a 2 seater routinely doing rolls and loops on 160HP sounds more UFO-like than Wallfisch-like to me. Putting some lead in their AI a**es might help, provided the CFS3 AI routines could cope with that in a WW1 plane like it could from my experiement with the 110.

[Lewie 7]

I don't know what the Vintage Aviator's DH2's markings represent, have no info on 7855. Blandford's 'Fighters 1914-19' illustrates a Red 4, serial 5967, of 29 Sqdn at Bertangles with red & white outer interplane struts but it has a khaki upper & front nacelle and plain doped linen wing uppers.

 

I only have OFF Phase 2 at the moment and its AI 2-seaters seem at times like they're flown by drunks who think they're flying UFOs. I had the impression Phase 3 improved on this but wonder from your description if there is still room for further improvement here. It was certainly there in CFS3, tho perhaps less pronounced with the WW2 planes. I remember finding out that the AI planes in CFS3 were believed to fly at unladen weights - no fuel or ammo anyway - so they were just too agile in any given situation. Became obvious when Me110s could out-manoeuvre Hurricanes etc. I came to the conclusion. shared with others at the time, that what was needed was AI-only planes with additional 'ballast' in their data files. I tried this out on a 3rd-party Me-110 and it definitely produced what I thought a more historically-accurate result. I never got around to doing more as I like to fly CFS3 as a fighter-bomber sim and was never impressed with it for dogfighting anyway. I daresay the Roland C IIs were good machines, Ball callled them "the best German machine now" but a 2 seater routinely doing rolls and loops on 160HP sounds more UFO-like than Wallfisch-like to me. Putting some lead in their AI a**es might help, provided the CFS3 AI routines could cope with that in a WW1 plane like it could from my experiement with the 110.

 

Well I expect them to be fast, but they seem to keep their energy in turns and climbs far too well, and they are also quite manuverable. Moreso than I would expect.

I'm stuck with the impression I got from RedBaron3D's Full Canvas Jacket mod FM for their Rolands. Where they flew more like heavy Albatros DII's.

 

I like CFS3's bomber fighter bomber missions. I had a couple of pilots with careers flying torpedo bomber missions with the B25, I really like that old can. Except when the ubered Bf109's showed up and made life not so pleasant.

[33LIMA 972]

Well I expect them to be fast, but they seem to keep their energy in turns and climbs far too well, and they are also quite manuverable. Moreso than I would expect.

I'm stuck with the impression I got from RedBaron3D's Full Canvas Jacket mod FM for their Rolands. Where they flew more like heavy Albatros DII's.

 

I like CFS3's bomber fighter bomber missions. I had a couple of pilots with careers flying torpedo bomber missions with the B25, I really like that old can. Except when the ubered Bf109's showed up and made life not so pleasant.

 

Ditto with the Ju88 (I did a 'Wellenmuster' skin that made it into the ETO expansion) and more recently with Beaufighters. Tho I still hate the CFS3 ship AI that doesn't evade, loses its wake and after a bit stops shooting, plus you can't do anti-ship in instant action. Still fun tho, and the ETO expansion's flak is even scarier than Firepower's, but not as 'sniper' as IL2's. If you haven't tried it, I'd heartily recommend the ETO expansion, many of the new planes are exquisite, including a magnificent Boston. - http://www.ww2aircombat.com/

 

Aah, Full Canvas Jacket! Re-installed mine recently, with a separate install for the Hell's Angels Super Patch. RB3d with mods had a lot going for it, tho I'm finding now I get a bigger buzz from First Ealges, and hope to do so from OFF P3 once I get my new graphics card.

 

Apart from the uber-Rolands, how are you finding the OFF Phase 3 AI, generally? In Phase 2, even allowing that the CFS3 AI was designed for planes with 1000-2000hp engines not 100-200hp, I hated the roller-coaster, limitless-energy, on-the-deck manoeuvring, the frequent post-takeoff crashes (even in Pups, for crying out loud), and the crap formation flying. RB3d did the ground level roller-coaster thing too and had other AI probs of its own, but heck, that was a 1998 sim.

Edited April 29, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Lewie 7]

Ditto with the Ju88 (I did a 'Wellenmuster' skin that made it into the ETO expansion) and more recently with Beaufighters. Tho I still hate the CFS3 ship AI that doesn't evade, loses its wake and after a bit stops shooting, plus you can't do anti-ship in instant action. Still fun tho, and the ETO expansion's flak is even scarier than Firepower's, but not as 'sniper' as IL2's. If you haven't tried it, I'd heartily recommend the ETO expansion, many of the new planes are exquisite, including a magnificent Boston. - http://www.ww2aircombat.com/

 

Aah, Full Canvas Jacket! Re-installed mine recently, with a separate install for the Hell's Angels Super Patch. RB3d with mods had a lot going for it, tho I'm finding now I get a bigger buzz from First Ealges, and hope to do so from OFF P3 once I get my new graphics card.

 

Apart from the uber-Rolands, how are you finding the OFF Phase 3 AI, generally? In Phase 2, even allowing that the CFS3 AI was designed for planes with 1000-2000hp engines not 100-200hp, I hated the roller-coaster, limitless-energy, on-the-deck manoeuvring, the frequent post-takeoff crashes (even in Pups, for crying out loud), and the crap formation flying. RB3d did the ground level roller-coaster thing too and had other AI probs of its own, but heck, that was a 1998 sim.

 

Thanks for the link, I'll have to give that a spin in CFS3.

 

Well about OFF, I like quite a few things about it, but I have some niggling complaints. The Camel, if anything, is a bit too forgiving. You can spin a 500' diameter circle banked over at 60 degrees, above confused Albatros's all day if you wish. Going into some of the aircraft's config files is enlightening. I notice in the section that establishes the flight dynamics, that there are parameters for gyro precession, but one of them is listed for 'roll' which is entirely incorrect. I haven't tried playing with it yet but I should give it an edit and see if it will accept 'pitch'. The reason the Roland swerves left and right with pitch inputs is that it has a full "1.00" as the 'scalar' for the 'yaw' precession. I don't think this is correct, the Roland doesn't have a rotary engine.

 

Also one other problem is that when engine damaged, the AI aircraft will sometimes assume a steep nose high angle and slowly sink, tail first, into the ground. Most of my kills end this way. It's a bit like a blimp that's lost it's buoyancy but is trying to stay airborne on pure thrust alone. I think there are some wing center of pressure - AoA anomalies in this sim.

 

All in all it's still a great sim, the flight effects add to the challenge of flying the planes, but I really like the inter dynamics of the encounters between enemy squadrons. Although I think the 2 seaters would be better if they executed the weaving defensive flight that RB3D's aircraft do when attacked from the same or lower level. I stalked a group of Rolands with my DH2 squad, sat right under their lower 6 for about 5 minutes before they noticed something was wrong and then they dived for the deck.

 

I'm sorry this is really OT, and we should return to the game..

 

Cheers

[+Polovski 456]

I'm won't get into a discussion about FMs in detail as there are many many things that have to be considered when making a WW1 flight model work well in a given sim engine - in our case not only for the player but for the AI too - not just the numbers. In other sims over the years there have been massive arguments about flight models and many opinions, however mostly they have been well received in OFF and for 6 years so well tested.

 

Not sure about Gyro "Roll" but the Gyro precession in AirWrench is for Pitch and Yaw not roll, the Camel is one of the better renditions in flight sims we believe and was one of the craft FMs we spent the most time on to get the feel good within the limits of the simulation.

 

The Aviatik has very very minor precession 105 is nothing 100 is "normal". Also I doubt makes much difference in sim given original discussions with Jerry Beckwith about this feature.

Gyro was added to AirWrench specifically at our request for OFF (with other new options for WW1) by Jerry who wrote AirWrench and you'll note the Camel has much much more added to get it to effect it in the sim.

 

BTW you may get different AI behaviours depending on which AI you have set in Hat In the Ring if you have it. Wrong thread for this of course so apologies to Olham.

[Olham 164]

As you mention FMs, Pol - have you kept the Pfalz D.IIIa on your list for improvements?

I tried it today, after a long time (think it was in P2), and I must say, the FM is a bit strange.

When I climbed towards stalling, the plane "fell off a table" to the left or right in a funny way.

It appears a bit weak overall - you cannot raise the nose much, and you get a stall.

I know, not many fly the Pfalz here - but that's a shame after all the model building and the

skinning, I find; maybe the funny FM is the reason?

I know you have already made some improvements, but it feels like there could be second

or third looks necessary.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Olham

[+Polovski 456]

Not sure Olham I didn't mean to turn this into a full FM discussion - it's a great solid craft and a good diver but we tried to get behaviours we read about a the time. The Pfalz's had problems from the various notes I read - a mixed pilot reception but mostly bad. Often problems with materials weathering badly or poor quality on reconditioned engines caused it to perform badly for some, yet others (maybe in a newly delivered craft?) compared it to the Albatros favourably.

 

If time we'll look at again - I think you said this before.

 

some examples

"The D.III has too little power and is not very maneuverable. It dived fast because of its streamlining, but that was all. " - Jachtvliegtuigen by Anthony Robinson (editor),

"Power on during approach, with engine off it must have fallen like a brick. - Wings of the Great War, by Jeffrey Ethell

 

 

With power off it tended to drop off and of course depends on altitude too, higher up it wasn't good etc.

[Olham 164]

I will give it some more time - Jasta 10 did seem to fly it from 22 November 1917 to 9 May 1918, and they were an elite Staffel.

Would they have used it for so long, if it wasn't any good?

It was just for the sake of the modelled and skinned craft (it breaks my heart, when they are not being flown after all that work).

[Burning Beard 14]

This isn't probably the place, but is there some way for us to allow OBD to include our custom skins in the next release (phase 4)? Some of you guys have done some pretty nice historic work. Mine personally has been either post war or fictional, but if they wanted to use them they should be able to send us a release to allow it. I know that if they asked for a specific skin I would be more than happy to give it to them for the good of the sim, not to mention the templates I made to build them.

 

Beard

[Lewie 7]

Not sure Olham I didn't mean to turn this into a full FM discussion - it's a great solid craft and a good diver but we tried to get behaviours we read about a the time. The Pfalz's had problems from the various notes I read - a mixed pilot reception but mostly bad. Often problems with materials weathering badly or poor quality on reconditioned engines caused it to perform badly for some, yet others (maybe in a newly delivered craft?) compared it to the Albatros favourably.

 

If time we'll look at again - I think you said this before.

 

some examples

"The D.III has too little power and is not very maneuverable. It dived fast because of its streamlining, but that was all. " - Jachtvliegtuigen by Anthony Robinson (editor),

"Power on during approach, with engine off it must have fallen like a brick. - Wings of the Great War, by Jeffrey Ethell

 

 

With power off it tended to drop off and of course depends on altitude too, higher up it wasn't good etc.

 

I recall reading somewhere that the Pfalz had a smaller aft fuselage cross section and smaller vertical stab-rudder and consequently less rudder authority and less prop blast yaw stability.

 

It was considered a stellar diver.

 

The config file for the Roland has in it's description entry that it was considered too nose heavy and was tricky for novices, especially to land? My test flights show if anything it's a gentle, neutral handling, aircraft that is really forgiving to land. It actually tends to balloon and slow considerably when flared at about 60~50 mph. No, not nose heavy in the least.

 

[Olham 164]

I recall reading somewhere that the Pfalz had a smaller aft fuselage cross section and smaller vertical stab-rudder and consequently less rudder authority and less prop blast yaw stability.

 

It was considered a stellar diver.

...which would come in very useful, if the Nieuport 17 (for example) wouldn't be able to dive after it with the same speed.

The Pfalz or also the Halberstadt may only have had this special advantage of better dive ability - but not yet in the sim.

[+Polovski 456]

Yes Lewie as I said not always possible to make all things perfect in sim as there are other factors too (I cant remember specifically for Roland haven't flown it for some time, but could be AI had issue with it given they use the same FM currently). We are working on AI coming in P4 so we shall see. Anyway off topic can we move any further FM talk elsewhere please - back to P4 for me..