JFM

How 'bout historically accurate airfields? Can that be done? Regarding two-seaters, +1 for them. I'll throw in the SPAD XI and the AGO C.I for consideration, although perhaps not for the first round of releases. Also, IMO it'd be nice to have AI-only two-seaters. BTW, my comp should be back next week and I can finally buy HITR. Looking forward to it.

Belgians flew Hanriots, BE2s (stock and Hispano Suiza modified), RE8s (stock and Hispano Suiza modified), Farmans (stock and modified), Nieuport 17s and 23s, Sopwith Camels, Breguet 14s, SPAD VIIs and SPAD XIIIs, among others. Plenty to keep us in the skies! BTW, drawing the profiles for an Aviation Militaire Belge book due out next year, written by Walter Pieters. It will be THE Belgian reference source.

Hello, All, I've not read Independent Force and thus bow to Bullethead's deeper knowledge and appreciate the info. It helps show that one could alter fuel to play with weight and balance and that it was done. I was just reading about it with SBDs at Midway. Regarding the RFC, early/mid-war and RFC machines sometimes bombed-up and flew without the observer to save weight. Also, I just went through my No. 20 Squadron (FE2d) and No. 24 Squadron (DH2) Squadron Record Books and both reflect beau coup sorties of 2.5 hours (even with the FE2ds bombed-up). I.E., they were going out with a helluvalotta fuel. So it's not an absolute that planes took off with reduced fuel. As Olham mentioned, the following from the DiD chain mail: I've done fuel calculations regarding Richthofen sorties and I know he and his pilots didn’t fly on fumes to save weight. For one instance, when he was shot 6 July he wrote that it was an hour before he contacted the enemy, then he stalked them and was involved in a combat that went on for some 15 to 20 minutes. Endurance depends on throttle settings, of course, and we can never determine a pilot’s throttle settings exactly. Likewise, performance data for Albatrosses vary, and actual performance varies with air pressure, air temperature, engine condition and pilot technique, but from NASM the Albatros endurance was roughly 1.5 hours under combat conditions. That means, roughly, MvR flew 88% of that endurance. Since fuel burn was roughly 14 gph, and fuel capacity was 21 gallons, then MvR used about 85% of his fuel capacity that day (not including any reserves [reserve tank of 6 gallons]). Or, to even it out, 88% endurance and 88% capacity. Of course, those figures reduce when you factor in a 6 gallon reserve. (I've seen a maximum endurance of 2.4 hours, too, which ostensibly occured in flight situations when you weren't hammering around at full throttle.) Based on performance data, flying with only 25% fuel, or about 5.25 gallons, gives you an endurance of about 22 minutes. It took that long to climb to 4000 metres in a D.Va, and eight minutes longer in a D.II. MvR’s Jasta 2 combat reports reveal that he was frequently engaging the enemy at 3,000 metres and it took a D.II 20 minutes to get there. I know we’ll never know many finite aspects history but I guarantee that MvR didn’t climb to altitude, find/fight/shoot down the enemy in two minutes, then glide back to base with a dead engine, out of fuel. At half tanks, ca. 11 gallons, you’d get 44 minutes endurance. Again, not much time to climb to altitude, find an enemy, fight, and then get home. I don’t know the weight of fuel used by the Germans but my speculation is it can’t differ appreciably from fuel used today, which for 100LL is 6 pounds per gallon. Thus, at that fuel weight, by using half tanks you’d save 66 pounds, which is about 3% the total weight of an Albatros and 13% of its useful load. A 3% reduction in weight and 13% reduction in useful load and an Albatros can turn with a Nieuport? Any weight reduction increases nimbleness, but based on those figures would the increase be appreciable? The Albatros wasn't built for maneuverability; it was built for speed and twin-gun firepower. For patrolling scouts it made little sense to hamper their effectiveness by reducing their ceilings and/or endurance via fuel limitation. Just when you finally spot a patrol of RE8s, the fuel runs out so now you are gliding home--just as the top-cover SE5a escort dives on you. This doesn't mean it (pre-takeoff fuel reduction) couldn't be done or wasn't done on some occasions/situations. As Bullethead wrote, it makes sense to play with fuel if you have a known target and wind forecast (although good luck with its accuracy!) to deliver a pre-determined ordnance load. Still, with OFF, many say the fuel management drastically affects all airplane performance, so even beyond the various historical considerations I recognize the importance of this feature as regards the sim, and it's great the devs are working on it. Again, I takeoff with full tanks, but if one can select auto-rudder, no wind, pilot never dies, etc., why not reduced fuel? After all, it's been an OFF setting for how many years? One thing I don't know and please chime in. With my experience in general aviation we always topped the tanks at night to evacuate as much air from them as possible to minimize/prevent water from condensing out of the trapped air and falling into the fuel. Would WW1 planes need like consideration? The tanks were pressurized, which is different than, say, a Cessna, which (in a 172) has vented gravity tanks, but the air going into those pressurized tanks came from the atmosphere. If the dewpoint was 60F then the air in your tanks had the same dewpoint, and with a close temp/dewpoint spread at night you'd have water condensing into the fuel. These tanks required some air headroom to pressurize them, but (I'm thinking aloud) the less the air in the tanks the less the water vapor to condense. The fuel systems had screens, drains and sumps to capture/bleed water, but why initiate a practice that allowed the most amount of water to enter the fuel system every night? Again, I am pondering aloud--I've not researched this nor do I remember reading about this so hopefully someone will chime in with info.

I agree with what Shredward wrote, and in OFF I usually fly German and I go up with full tanks, always. However, if one can disable the wind, select auto rudder and auto mixture, then one ought to be able to select fuel amount. Doesn't matter for me; I'm just saying. Now I'll let you guys get back to work on that P4 Friedrichshafen G.III.

That is so dark and/or distant that I cannot discern detail. Perhaps you can post some unaltered screenshots, please?

Thank God!

I'll order it as soon as my main computer returns from its GD repairs. I've been pining for a DH5 for years.

Perhaps, but the Germans did it while the bullets were still flying.

We don't have to. I haven't watched the news for years, because it's not anymore. Thus, I spare myself enduring this sort of overkill.

That link = fail.

I say that about Manfred, too. The outcome of WWII wouldn't have been different, but (IM speculative O) likely the toll would have been much higher with MvR at the helm than HG.

Those look great! On a constructive note, on future Alb D skins, please make sure the port-side Albatros rudder logo is facing the spinner. Most skins and illustrations have the bird "flying" toward the tail but photos show it "flew"/faced toward the spinner and not the trailing edge of the rudder. One exception to this is the Albatros D.III (OAW). Here's an example of proper rudder logo orientation:

Yes, yes, I do. +1.

From what I've read the DH5 was given negative stagger to combine the excellent forward view of a pusher scout with the aerodynamic advantages of a tractor scout. They were used on the western front (just double-checked and at least Nos. 24, 32, 21 RFC and 68 Australian used them) late spring through late autumn/early winter 1917. Unfounded "viscious" stall rumors hounded the plane, but flying the plane revealed the stall rumors were exaggerated. It was simple to fly, easy to land, had light controls, dived well, was quick in turns, but it was very stable and the rearward view was poor. It also suffered from engine problems, vibration problems, gun synchronizing problems. However, it's excellent forward view and structural strength suited it for ground attack, although I have not researched how effective it was in this role.

Real war is horrible, obviously, but what does the Amnesty Box have to do with me flying a computer airplane and shooting other computer airplanes?

I carry a big stick, and it can get very loud eight times. I may be considered a savage but shooting down computer airplanes doesn't bother me in the slightest. The more BE2s I can attack unmercifully and burn, the better. This is why I own OFF, after all, to shoot down other airplanes and not get shot down myself. Seeing a guy jump out just means I can move on to the next target.

No, but I've seen Sanford and Son so I have an idea! Hey, I'd be doing you a favor taking that prop off your hands. I tell you what, I'll even pay for half the shipping.

You and Daisy from KUA!

Hey, man, you have my address. Looking forward to it! You can throw that Sop prop in as well. Thanks!

Okay, last night I joined Jasta 2 and, indeed, 16 September I had the D.II, so that's when I started. I must say the following three missions were the best and most fun I've ever had with OFF. I actually saw other airplanes, and I actually saw two-seaters. Several times "shrapnel clouds" led to me to the enemy, and one time it was an FE2 trying to sneak back across the deck at treetop height. Most amazing of all is I have ten claims, which is unheard of for me--I got lucky and found some unescorted BE2s, Strutters and Fees and tore through them unmercifully. Fought some Nieuports which really gave me a hell of a time, right down above the trees, but I got a burst into his belly during a head-on pass (I normally avoid those but this was a melee and I was taking any shot I could get) and he wobbled off and crashed. Hopefully I'll get some of those claims. I've had an inordinate number denied in the past but I just didn't like it when I had the "auto claim" feature enabled. So, I'll take my chances. I don't get to fly too often but this weekend I have a little extra time so I'm off to Bertincourt now. I'll see you there, Olham!

Nice! Thank you for the preview. DH5? I've been pining for one of those for quite some time. My letter must have reached Santa.

MvR was in Jasta 2 from 1 September but the Staffel was underequipped and only had a rag-tag handful of airplanes, and only one was a Halberstadt. He flew sorties 14 and 15 September, flying the Halberstadt or perhaps a Fokker D.I, but on the 16th J2 received 6 new Albs. 5 were D.Is and the sixth was a D.II. Boelcke flew the D.II so MvR's first victory 17 September was flying a D.I. The sim is limited with what it can reproduce but I'm guessing (please correct me if wrong) you'll get the D.II (no D.I in sim yet) by the 16th. Since some other unmentionable sim has turned more and more into a stuttering slideshow nightmare with each patch, I'm starting an OFF campaign. Maybe I'll join your Staffel!

Dad, writer, illustrator.

Stellar. Certainly looking forward to this.

It'll be fun gliding in them!