JFM

Yes! Even when I've proven it 100% without doubt.

Seems pretty good. They got in the Schneider and LVG information, which most omit--they usually go with that "Fokker invented it in two days" baloney. One thing I'll add is from what I've researched, Garros' plane wasn't outfitted with wedges instead of an interrupter, it was outfitted with wedges AND an interrupter. The wedges had been fitted on as extra protection ("back up device") because they were having trouble with a consistent firing rates that caused prop strikes. Thus, on Garros' plane when lost, it was installed but not connected.

I agree, Hauksbee. But even then that's not good enough for some people!

I'm no expert on this plane and have a few references. I'll quote Peter Grosz's information: "When it arrived at combat units, the Ago C.I became highly regarded for its tractable flight characteristics and quickly won the confidence of airmen who flew this fine aircraft. The Ago C.I lasted at the Front for almost two years--the maximum number of 23 [at the front] was recorded on 30 June 1916." Later, "The type was easy to land and take-off, an important consideration on unprepared airfields. The flight controls were satisfactory but the climb rate, and the speed were considered somewhat slow especially for 'over the lines operations.'" Also, "There was no rear defence, but in the opinion of those who flew the Ago C.I, the engine provided a 'suitable bullet catcher.' Nevertheless as the tempo of air war escalated the lack of rear armament caused the Fliegertruppe to remove the type from combat in late 1916. They were assigned to training units." As far as photos, my pleasure. We're all subjected to such crappy and/or small copies on the internet that if I can post a nice shot now and then, I will. BTW, notice in that closeup of the AGO's nose that the front gear has been removed to reduce drag and weight. Plus, they could carry more bombs. Note the external bomb racks and the two vertical bomb guides to prevent bombs (carried internally and) dropped by the pilot from hitting the gear. Also, the early C.Is had radiators on the side of the fuselage, and the interplane struts "wrapped around" the booms rather than being faired inside them, as on later versions. You can see these features on the prototype photo Olham posted above. Also, in that shot of 371/15, see that pipe that runs forward just underneath the two cockpits? Grosz wrote that was part of a "hot water system" devised to provide warmth for the crew by carrying hot water from the engine to the front of the fuselage, but it's not known (at least as of that publications' date [1999], and I don't know, either] how the heat was distributed. The placard underneath read "Heizrohr beim Besteigen nich anfassen," translated as "do not touch heating pipe while climbing aboard." They all didn't have such external pipes on the port side but I've yet to determine which production batches did, which didn't, etc. {Edited for typos and a repeated word. If I missed others, so be it!}

I hope there is no Voss movie. It would be about one day, that day would be overly dramaticized way more than it already is, the CGI would have the planes performing stunts a Pitts couldn't pull off, and the history driving the film would be flagrantly inaccurate.

Yes, between the left wing and the right wing. Yes, Hasse, this book states one Deperdussin TT was fitted with a 160 hp Gnome. The way the book states it, they didn't change from 160 to 80 hp, but rather the 160 hp came later and was a test.

Yes, the AGO saw action in the war. The British first thought it was twin-engined. It was a damn site better and more useful than a Fokker EV/DVIII, for instance. I'd love to see it in a sim. Love to see it in either of the two big WW1 sims. Seems a little better suited for OBD's, since they appear more focused on historical representation. As long as there are two different sims, as a fan it'd be nice if each focused on aspects/planes not found in the other. For those of us who fly both, anyway. But, regarding the AGO C.I, it was always a two-seater, hence its "C" designation. According to Grosz, this was Germany's first armed recon airplane to received a C-class designation. Olham, that first photo you posted is the prototype. The second is C.I 371/15. I'll attach some more photos below. The shot of LF 181 was caption in Grosz's book as "transferred to the Fliegertruppe to the navy in 1915. The original army numbers on the tail fin have been erased and replaced by the designation LF 181 (LF = Landflugzeug)." He identifies the airfield as Niewmunster, Belgium, but the buildings in the background--although similar--are slightly different than Niewmunster. However, I matched them (down to slat-by-slat comparison) 100% to those in the famous photos of Manfred von Richthofen climbing into the Albatros C.IX. Furthermore, I've matched both of these photos with several other photos and WW1 German airfield layout maps and determined 100% that this location is actually Hannover, Germany. In one of the photos, the version on floats is the C.Iw. And, these planes were not blue, as shown in one of the art depictions above but, as described by one of its pilots, "a light yellowish-brown," which has been determined to mean clear-doped fabric with the metal parts and wooden booms painted to match, although the footsteps appear to be unpainted metal. (Edited to add four photos. BTW, I'm having no luck with a good shot of 96/15. I've asked a few friends and they don't have shots, either, but I have a few more to ask.)

It's not speculation, there are several photos of this machine that have been published. I'll go through my archives and see if I have a better shot.

I don't know about those blurry art photos, but the plane in the first post is AGO C.I 96/15, from the second production series, C.94-105/15, ordered April 1915.

One of my favorites, an AGO CI.

According to the book French Aircraft of the First World War, Davilla & Soltan, page 185, only two were armed. One "was sent to the Groupe des Escadrilles de Protection du Camp retranche de Paris (C.R.P.) but there is no record of its taking part in aerial combats." It also states two escadrilles used the type TT, D 4 and D 6, and that the observer's location between the wings hampered visibility and led to the TT's quick withdrawal from service. Oh, and listed speeds are way below 130 mph. This book has the TT powered by the 80hp Gnome listed with a max speed of 115 km/h (71 mph).

Here are some larger shots:

Here, here's a better photo:

My speculation is they just began the process of removing the wings in preparation to tow it away. Wing removal for towing was SOP.

Sure, Hawker lost. Look at May, though, he lived. Both were fleeing, and all it takes is one bullet. Hawker got it, May didn't. Survival is fight or flight. Going "I give up" and then hoping the other guy won't shoot an easy target is neither. Two-seaters didn't just give up and land when attacked, and something like a BE2 had little hope of outfighting an Albatros. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but as a rule they shot back, they maneuvered, they dived away. MvR damn sure wouldn't stop shooting at a guy trying to land. As long as you were in the air, and sometimes after, his writings and actions suggest demonstrated that he considered them fair game. He shot you all the way to the ground, stopped engine be damned. His did this from his first confirmed victory, when he saw the propeller stop on the FE2b but he kept on firing at it anyway. As stated, too many variables for each situation, such as the other guy having no idea that your gun(s) are jammed, and there are lots of examples of guys "fighting" it out regardless and getting home. What if you are in better physical condition and can endure G loads better than the other guy and thus physically beat him in the air and keep him from gaining a killing position? Or keep "attacking" even though a jammed gun and force him to flee? If a pilot is just going to defeat himself mentally and give up, he might as well just fly to an enemy aerodrome and surrender himself on his first sortie to ensure he won't be killed. Regarding the Fokker Scourge, by October 1916 it was a memory. The Nieuports and DH2s had ended that. Regarding A2540's downing, what more is there to learn? Shot in the fuel tank, engine stopped, force landed, PoW, repatriated 18 December 1918. Where he thought he was didn't matter since one can only glide so far when the engine won't run anymore.

I'd rather fight it out. That's what fighter pilots are supposed to do instead of just give up and then throw caution to the wind and hope the pilot doesn't shoot at you anyway. If one can't accept the risk involved with combat and will just give up, it's time to see the CO and tell him so somebody else can take your place. As far as A2540 up there, it was brought down by a hit to the fuel tank. All it takes is one bullet to the tank or the head, and see ya.

As far as airplane damage, all it takes is one bullet to a pressurized fuel tank and down it comes. Love to see that realism in flight sims instead of the fuel slowly draining out (btw, which means, in sims, that fuel tank damage only occurs at the very bottom of the tank, never anywhere else, since all the fuel drains out).

Often it is said Boelcke had "powder stains" on his face. Indeed, in one photo he is seen wiping a black substance from his chin. However, I always wonder if the black on his face actually is powder stains, and not some cold-protective grease, how did these stains get through the upturned collar and scarf that always covered his chin and lower face? And, if so, why isn't it on the rest of his face and appears just on his chin? If grease, did it collect dirt/oil from his upturned collar and thus only his chin was black? In any event, in the first post's photo his entire face wouldn't be black from "powder stains" because a good portion would have been covered by goggles and therefore unstained. Also, respectfully, there is no connection to what he is doing to what he has just done--no way it can be said with any certainty at all that he did anything with the plane in the background. That's just pure flight-sim-forum-speculation. But, to further that, IMO he is putting his coat on, based on 1) assistance and 2) his outstretched arm. When you take a coat off you don't stretch out your arms horizontally like that, but you do when you want to get your arms down the sleeves and shoot a bulky coat up onto your shoulders. To me it appears he has just gotten his right arm in and has swung his left arm into the sleeve to "shoot the cuff." But, like you guys, that's just rampant speculation. Maybe a bee flew in there and he was trying to get it out? We have NO idea.

Fantastic! Thank you. BTW, what is the device moving in the BIFF cockpit at 00:50? Working air pump?

I like how the headline had to tell us the camera was an antique. From a photography standpoint I appreciate the novelty of finding decades-old pictures in a camera, but regarding WW1, the two they showed are nondescript.

Hello, I respectfully disagree it was the right thing to do. The relatives of those Germans subsequently killed by this crew certaintly wouldn't think so. "My daughter just died but, that's okay, at least our Luftwaffe pilot, who is trained and paid to protect us, let that damaged bomber escape so the crew could come back in another plane and blow up our house." But, I understand war is dichotomous, people buy up these sorts of Waldo Pepper stories, and this guy has a book to sell so they're hitting the preconceived "chivalry" aspect of WW1 hard at Christmas. They know what they're doing. I guess the paint hadn't yet worn off Stigler's rosary beads while he shot down those other 11 bombers to his credit, but It's interesting to me how war revels in contradiction. It's the "right thing" to let enemies fly away in a damaged plane, but if the same plane were undamaged it'd be "okay" to shoot it down. Or, as regards that malarky about no strafing. To name a few of the famous, Voss, Richthofen, and Ball all strafed downed machines. None of these strafings resulted in injury, but there is outrage against it. But it's okay--even celebrated--that these men killed many, many men while shooting airplanes in the air. So, it's "okay" to shoot machinegun bullets through a man's head or cause him to burn to death while he's flying an airplane in the air, but it's "not okay" to shoot at this airplane while it's on the ground, even though no injury resulted. "But, the men on the ground were defenseless." Really? The attack methodology of both sides was to strike an enemy unawares. So, again, it's acceptable to kill a man before he's even aware he's being attacked, but outrageous to shoot at him on the ground but not injure him. Please note I'm just rambling on, not trying to dissuade you guys from your take on Stigler letting this plane go. I understand it. Who knows what I would do in that situation. A war with a country we didn't want to fight in the first place? With Lebensraum, Hitler's aims were east, not west, and after Munich he didn't expect England to uphold its treaty with Poland and declare war on Germany (whoops). So, I can see that sort of thing happening. However, there are many countries right now I can think of who, if they flew planes to attack the US and I were a defending pilot, those planes would be a burning patch of gasoline on the Gulf, no matter how damaged they were before I arrived. So I type; fortunately, I'll never know.

Oh, please: "These were men who fought by a code, who would look each other in the eye mid-air, who would never strafe an enemy plane that was already going down." What a bunch of pulp malarky. This writer and anyone who believes that obviously does not know their history about Manfred von Richthofen--and a zillion other pilots. The story of that event makes for good reading--except what I referenced above--but I always wonder how many hundreds of German civilians died as a result of this crew being allowed to fly home and live on or not be captured, enabling them to fly more bombing missions.

Hello, Accusim "keeps track" of your airplane. When you fire up an FSX plane that has accusim, it's "your" airplane. Thus, it "remembers" everything that has been done with it, and done to it. Hours are logged. Time between engine overhauls are monitored. Systems get old and need replacing. Every once in a while, things fail. I've lost a cylinder before, and once I couldn't raise my gear when the hydraulic pump failed. If you make a belly landing and then exit the sim, for instance, the next time you go to fly that plane you won't be able to--it'll still be on the belly. You have to go into the maintenance hangar and initiate "repairs" to get it in flying condition again. These repairs are, fortunately, instantaneous, but things like this add to the--and I hate this overused word, but I'll use it--"immersion." Raves about Accusim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnQjs0CHoRs&list=UUnK85B5INN2pRnAbdZ4tYaQ&index=11 This skips the raves and shows you the features: Skip to 1:00 to get to the meat. This shows the B-17, but A2A has accusim on their P-51, P-40, P-47, B-377, at least. Some may not like Accsuim, but IMO it's stellar. In combat sims, not only would you have to worry about the enemy, but you'd have to maintain your own bird.

To hood: Wonder what the sims will be like when I'm 90? I fly FSX, too, mostly the A2A B-17G. Love the "accu-sim" feature because the airplane becomes "yours." Love to see that in combat flight sims, too.

47. I live in Florida today, but I'm from Ohio. We all talk normally. Everybody else has an accent. See you guys in Dayton, 2014.