Pips

I raised this very issue on 'The Aerodrome' some time back. It generated, to say the least, a very spirited discussion! http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/40483-how-many-red-fokker-triplanes.html

Like many here probably, I snap up any WWI air combat films I come across. Think I have most of them eg Wings, The Dawn Patrol, The Blue Max (my favourite), Aces High, Hell's Angels, Flyboys, Ace of Aces and Von Richthofen and Brown. As far as filming pleasure goes ie storyline, characters etc the Blue Max is tops for me. Followed by The Dawn Patrol and Wings. But I've always wondered which one was the most accurate at depicting actual combat. Then I came across this post over at The Aerodrome by Alex Revell. For those who don't know Alex, he is a prolific writer on WWI air warfare. He has been fortunate to have met many WWI pilots. The Post is part of a Thread discussing the book "No Parachute" by Arthur Gould Lee. Lee was president of C&C (the magazine Cross and Cockade) in the early 1970's. I suppose he would have been in his middle seventies then, but he was very lively and active. I first met him in the late 60s. I remember discussing with him how in films such as The Blue Max, pilots in combat, with someone on their tail, just kept looking round and never seemed to take any evasive action. He agreed. Sometime later we had a screening of "Hells Angels" at a C&C meeting. In the first dogfight scene, viewed from a distance, when all the opposing aeoplanes come together and immediately break up into a whirling mass of dots, he tapped me on the shoulder - he was sitting behind me - and said 'That's what it was like, Alex, that's exactly what it was like.' Now I'm going to pull out 'Hells Angels' and watch it again. With greater appreciation. :)

Beautifully done.

Here's a view of the Albatross D series wing problems over at the Aerodrome. And the limits so imposed. Makes for interesting reading. http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/51827-albatross-d-iii-d-v-wing-probs.html

That's a very curious thing to say Widowmaker. Why haven't you? Very interested to know the reasons why. I have to admit to being very fond of the Nieuport 11 and 17 marks. Comparatively they are as good as anything the Germans can put in the air up to early 1918. If I fly Allied I naturally choose Nieuport Squadrons rather than those equipped with the Camel or Se.5. The only Allied aeroplane I enjoy flying and fighting more is the Tripe. :)

Just had a read (again) through this Forum. It's been quite a while since I last read it, probably years. And (as always) I was struck by the breath of knowledge and detail contained within. It truly is a gem, rich, factual and highly illuminating. Well worth folks taking the time to read it. Does much to enhance our sim. For excample Bletchley's analysis of engines really is an eye-opener. WWI engines are often protrayed as simple and rudimentary. But Bletch does a great job of showing just how sophisticated they were, and how creative were the early engine manufacturers were. An example of this is Bristol's 'Altitude Compensator' was a most ingenious attempted solution to the problem posed by the rarified air of higher altitudes at which aeroplanes fought as the War progressed. Shame the Forum is tucked away out of sight.

The more I fly this sim the more time I spend flying two-seaters. In campaign they are far more challenging to survive, and that's the aspect that appeals to me most. And one of my favourite aeroplanes is the Roland C.II. By all accounts it was bit of a beast to fly, although in OFF it is more of a baby. Perhaps for Stage 4 it can be modelled more along the lines of this article: Windsock Datafile 49 LFG Roland CII , P M Grosz It was reported than in speed trials the Walfisch demonstraded a speed advantage of about 30 km/h (19mph) over contemporary two seaters. The Roland C.II arrived at the Front in March 1916 and remained there until June 1917.'[...] At the time the smallest two-seater in German service, the C.II by virtue of its high wing and power loading demonstrated excellent performance. In speed it was equal to the Nieuport 11 and Sopwith Pup single-seat fighters, making it a formidable opponent in the air. The C.II biplanes generally flew in unison because their high speed precluded operating with the slower Rumpler, Albatros and LVG C-types then at the Front. The C.II was not suited for dog-fighting because the short, round fuselage disturbed the airflow over the tail surfaces reducing the control effectiveness. This particular shortcoming was not corrected until the last production batch (see Appendices). The C.II could not be held in a climbing turn and had a tendency to stall. Better effect would have been achieved had the small wing gap (only 84,5% of chord) been increased to reduce the aerodynamic interference between the wings. A serious problem that pilots soon discovered to their dismay was the limited downward visibility while landing [...] Dipl-Ing Madelung of Idflieg wrote that, 'the landing problem was not discovered during the design or testing phase, but only after the type had reached the Front'. Hauptmann Hermann Kohl, Staffelfuhrer of Kampfstaffel 22, an experienced C.II flier, who with his pilot Leutnant Kalf destroyed the ammunition dump at Cerisy on the night of November 6/7 1916, recalled that, 'in our Walfisch we had poor visibility and every pilot was in a sweat about landing.' Another pilot wrote that, 'the Walfisch put much fear into the enemy and where it appeared the enemy sought safety in escape. In fact, the Walfisch was not a particularly flight-worthy machine. It was taken for granted that every pilot on his first flight would crash on landing.' Hauptmann Arthur Pfleger of Feldflieger-Abteilung 5b recalled that the Walfisch was fast and demonstrated a phenomenal rate of climb, but it was tricky to handle. Pfleger crashed twice during landing and other squadron members fared no better. Oberleutnant Maximilian von Cossel and his pilot Rudolf Windisch of Feldflieger-Abteilung 62 who flew a Roland C.II behind Russian lines to blow up a railway line on October 2 1916, reported that the Walfisch, 'was not liked by everybody because of its nose heaviness.' About half-way through the third production batch [...] structural changes were made to improve the flight characteristics. [...] The aileron actuating controls were led through the upper wing giving a stiffer and more positive control response. It is believed that this modified version was designated the Roland C.IIa. [...] These modified aircraft began to reach the Front in the summer of 1916. A final Roland C.lla version of which 40 were ordered in June 1916 [...]featured a large vertical tail of increased area to improve flight control, something that should have been discovered and corrected during the prototype flight trials. According to Professor Wilhelm Hoff, a member of the Idflieg technical staff, the Roland Walfisch had the first well-designed streamlined fuselage, but the ineffectiveness of the small vertical tail surfaces had been responsible for fostering a general (if erroneous) belief among German designers that rounded fuselages were to be avoided because of the concomitant poor control qualities. [...] since the Roland C.II was outdated and not suitable for heavier engines, it would be dropped from production If the sweep of fire around the upper hemisphere was superb, the lower sector — blocked by the high fuselage and bottom wing — was a veritable blind spot, quickly taken advantage of by Allied pilots. [...] Throughout 1916, the Walfisch performed a valuable combat role, finding employment [...] in assignments where high speed provided an advantage [...] a superior aircraft in the spring of 1916, was , by early, 1917 only capable of lesser assignments. The average ceiling of 3,500 meters [...] made the CII unacceptable for long-range reconnaissance

Geez! All I can say is the Germans must have had bloody huge dogs.

Have a favourite Squadron? Always wanted to know it's location and movements during the Great War? Or of Airfeilds and what Squadrons operated from them? Then this map is right up your alley. Offers many options. :) http://patriot.net/~townsend/WW1AirMap2/

Dazzling, very slick indeed. :)

vonOben, As regards dead stick landings the greatest danger is usually stalling short. The best way I found to practice is to climb up to around 10,000 feet, switch off, and play around with your favourite aeroplane. Work out your best glide angle (it does vary greatly), stall speed and stick warnings, side slipping, dives and level off to watch the rate of your forward speed bleed and so on. Once your comfortable with that try a few landings with the engine throttled right back. Don't try to come straight in from any sort of height. Always spiral down, performing nice gentle circles over the aerodrome whilst losing height. If you are successful landing without having to resort to using your engine, your ready to switch off totally and give it a go. It's fun.

Good tips Olham, clear and concise. Unfortunately the Nieuport 28 flight model, like the Spad VII and XIII, is incorrectly modelled in OFF. One of the very few rare mistakes made by the guys. Hopefully the that will be corrected in Phase 4. The Nieuport 28 possessed great agility (courtesy of teh short wingspan and powerful rudder), speed and climb. Sadly it lacked somewhat in durability, and the French attitude to it rubbed off on the Americans (who were trained and equipped by the French). Initially equipped with the N.28, several wing failures (although only two resulted in deaths) created a poor impression by pilots. That lack of confidience (so critical) did much to earn the N.28 a poor reputation. In fact the problem (the top wing spanwise cover seam) was quickly identified by Nieuport and corrected with overlay reinforced leading edge seams which solved the problem. However the damage had been done and the Aviation Militaire had discared its' N.28's to the unfortunate Americans, who in turn discarded it in favour of the SPAD XIII.

The Fokker E series effectiveness in air combat is something of an enigma. One the one hand it's introduction caused widespread panic amongst the British and French (in the early stages) of the air war. Even as late as May 1916 it still caused much concern among Allied pilots, for it's use was widespread, and most of the Allies were still flying antiquated all but defenceless reconnaissance aeroplanes. Yet the aeroplane itself was quite basic. For it's time it did possess a good turn of speed (remember all is relative), but was slow in maneouvre and climb rate, although quite responsive to elevators and rudder input. Fokker himself admitted that the E was tricky to fly and somewhat unreliable. So how did it gain such a reputation? Two words ....... gun and pilot. As mentioned above the forward firing machine gun literally revolutionised air combat. For many months the Allies had nothing to compete. And that is a long, long time in air combat. The quality and skill of the pilots also played it's part in allowing the Fokker E. to rule the skies. Indeed without those pilots able to utilise the advantages of the Fokker there never would have been a Scourge. While numbers vary as to how many Germans flew the Fokker on operations (Norman Franks states 132) very few actually achieved victories. And of those only 11 scored more than 5 victories; with Boelcke, Immelmann and Wintgens being the main success stories. Effectively those 11 men were the Fokker Scourge. A final word on tactics. Boelcke summed it up best in his book "An Aviators Field Book" when he said: gain height, use the sun and clouds, show patience and get in close. Something we often tend to forget is that very few pilots in the early days of flying knew little more than how to take off, fly around and land. Very few pilots practiced aerobatics often because the aeroplanes were not strong enough to handle such forces. Few even knew of them. And even fewer even knew how to recover from a spin! There was no combat training, simply because the whole process was just in the throws of being created. When we fly in the game we whizz around pulling all sorts of stunts, irrespective of the timeline. Yet in 1915/1916 pilots didn't fight that way. You made a pass, performed an Immelmann if you were skilled enough, then either pushed off looking for another unsuspecting enemy, or flew home. In that context the Fokker can be considered a capable fighter. However, once faced with aeroplanes capable of matching (or exceeding) it's speed and exceeding it's manoeuverability (a la D.H.2 and Nieuport 11) it was shown for what it was, a early technology limited fighter.

There's a fascination I have for the Camel which I just can't shake. Looks are part of it (although there are far more appealing WWI aeroplanes), as is it's impressive combat record. I think what holds my awe the most though is it's unforgiving flight reputation ...... "She answered readily to intelligent handling, but she was utterly remorseless against brutal or ignorant treatment"; Norman McMillian, 45 Squadron Camel pilot. I love coming across pilot's first hand comments. One of the best is by Frank Tallman, who owned and flew an original F.1 back in the late '60's. His comments are here: http://combatace.com/topic/37648-great-war-historical-archive/page__st__20 Post number 34. Another really good description is by Richard King, who flew the brilliant replica with the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. His put his thoughts on paper in the August 1998 issue of Flight Journal. Find it here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8823870/?tag=content;col1

Anonymity of British aces is not necessarily true. It's one of those myths that have grown up after the war. Although to be fair, British aces were not fetted by the 'Establishment' as were aces from France, Germany or Italy. In reality there existed two levels of 'public awareness'. The first level was that which existed within the RFC. Top scoring pilots were very well known by their compatriots. The second level was that of acknowledgement by the public. Despite the best efforts of the stuffy establishment, newpapers (especially the more base tabloids) searched out stories concerning aces and published them frequently. Lanoe Hawker for example, was well known by the public following his VC award. Prior to that he was very well known within the closed ranks of the RFC. Ball too was a public idol - which started when his proud father sent copies of his letters to a local newspaper, who promtly sold them onto to the major tabloids in London. Bishop, Claxton, McCudden, Hazell, Bell-Irving (to name just a few) were reasonably well known by the public. Perhaps the best British ace unknown to the public was Mannock, yet his fame within the RFC was high. Another myth fostered about the aces was their lack of interest in their kill claims. I'm not sure why this came about. Perhaps it's the civil British attitude that one doesn't delight in killing. Or maybe the 'also-rans' felt threatened. Certainly the stuffy Establishment wanted no one to share the glory other than themselves. Whatever, just read some bio's or letters by the aces, especially the high scoring ones. They are very particular about their kill numbers, scrupulous in keeping tabs of where they stand, who is doing better than them etc. Ball wanted to head Guynemer, and beat Boelcke; Bishop very badly wanted to be the top dog; Hazell and Fullard had an ongoing race; Cobby was after Little's score; Collishaw strove to be the top Canadian ace; McCudden knew exactly where he stood in the race for the top; and Mannock wanted badly to beat McCudden. They're people, more particularly young competitive high spirited men. Of course they kept count.

The following link provides a very detailed analysis of the types of gunsights used during WWI. Fascinating read. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=17649

This site is a real pearl. Some absolute classic articles dating back to the very dawn of flight. WWI covered comprehensively. As a taster, here's an article covering the German anaylsis of a captured Sopwith Triplane. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1918/1918%20-%200365.html

If your a fan of the "Hat In The Ring" add-on you'll definitely want to read this book. It's titled " American Eagles - The Illustrated History of American Aviation in World War I". Author is Narayan Sengupta. Link to the book site is: http://www.usaww1.com/History-of-the-United-States-Air-Service.php4 A really interesting point he highlights about the Nieuport 28 has to do with the oft repeated claim of it shedding it's wings. He makes the telling point that, of the 298 N.28's operated by the USAC, there are only four (4) recorded instances where fabric stripped from their wings in a dive. And none of those occurrances caused a fatility. It's an excellent book, and should be on the shelf of anyone interested in the role the USAC played in the war. In fact I'll go so far as to say that it's on a par with "Hostile Skies" by James Hudson, which to my mind is THE book on the subject. :)

Yeah, there are some inherent limitations with the base engine that I guess the guys just can't overcome. At this stage anyway. Still, there are some things that you can do to try and maintain a sence of reality. For example, when I come across a flight of Be's or Fe's, I initially lead the attack with my Kette, then sorta back-off and leave it to the wingmen to continue the attacks. Like a training flight. Occassionally the wingmen will down 1, perhaps 2 of the enemy. But it takes a while. Or, if I'm feeling aggressive, I'll practice overhead and high side passes, or stalking from below. Either way I'll only ever take down 1. Then continue on my patrol looking for more suitable targets. Just try and vary things somewhat. I find it helps with the enjoyment of the sim.

And to think that the poor blighter in the front seat never wore a seat belt! All he could do was hold on for dear life if the pilot started to throw the Fee around. And try and track and shoot an enemy aeroplane. Now that's BRAVE - or mad. Being British probably both! By the by, Aeroplane magazine did an article on the Fee pictured above. It was in the July 2009 issue.

Beautiful time piece. You lucky bigger!! I have a real thing for pocket watch's, 48 in my collection so far. You have a real gem there Lou.

Just curious if anyone has made the attempt, and succeeded.

I've been waiting years for this book to finally get published. Now at last Amazon have it down for May 2010. I've already pre-ordered. http://www.amazon.ca/Captain-Roy-Brown-Definitive-Richthofen/dp/1883283566 Being based on his personal letter's finally we may gain an insight as to how Brown himself felt about downing Manfred von Richthofen and the resulting controversary. Although more interesting to me is that Brown, as a Flight Leader, never lost a man in combat! Now that's someone you'd want to serve with.

Excellent!! I'm always interested in more Pfalz skins. And that's a really good one WM.

As everyone has mentioned, the E.III is very ill-matched in OFF. Just about any Allied aircraft in OFF is superior to the Fokker. In actuality though the only place where E.III's met Nieuport N.II's in any sort of numbers was over Verdun; and the Nieuports were there in very low numbers. Yet even those were sufficient to defeat the Fokkers. As was just one Squadron (No.24) of D.H.2's in Flanders - plus a couple of squadon's of F.B.'s. Which should give you an idea of just how primitive a fightiong machine the Fokker E series was. By the time the Brits received the Nieuport the Fokkers had all but disappeared, although surprisingly some KEK's did labour on with it until around late September 1916. And they mostly were very unhappy with it. Your best chance with flying the E.III in OFF is to gain as much height as you have the patience for and they start your patrolling. That way if you see the enemy most likely you'll have a height advantage, which is good because the E.III dive's well. If the enemy is not too numerous make a pass, pull up into a wingover, have one more go and then beat it for home. DO NOT stay and try to fight. If your feeling really brave and have the patience, gain height once more and keep patrolling. Finally, to get the feel of the Fokker Scourge era, try and get your hands on "Sharks Amongst Minnows" by Norman Franks. It's a marvellous book on the subject.