JFM

RTB during a Home Defense campaign mission. Not an action-packed screenshot, it just looks great to me.

I haven't even messed with it, just way too busy in the last few days to do any sort of simming. I'll have more time this week.

Well, for clarity here, Pol showed me where the sound files are, so I went through all of them. None of them sounded as they do when I fly the sim. So something is wonky on my end or my ears just hear them oddly when combined with wind, engines, and the sound of my plane burning.

Hey HS. From what I've read, the in-house plan is (was?) to release FC1 and then implement a campaign/career, just as they did with Rise of Flight. I wish it was all-in-one, but I get the sense FC, the way they are doing it, is almost a toe-in-the-water to see what happens. You know, support the sim and we'll make more. But, then again, every dev says that about every sim. They must be doing alright, though, as they have three different sims in development, at least in some form. As much as I'm looking forward to FC's ultimate development, I'm also stoked for BOP. Me-262? Been waiting for years! Not to mention P-47, P-38, Tempest, P-51. There was an age when WW1 flight sims were stuck in the Western Front. Now, they're stuck in the Eastern Front or BoB. I'm burned out on both and WAY looking forward to BOP.

I do, but I'm waiting for the map to really fly it a lot. But I don't know where you got the info about "no campaign of any kind planned." I've read Jason talking just the opposite. Unless something happened recently that I missed, in which they stated "no campaign is planned anymore." If so, please point me in that direction, if you remember where you saw it. I agree, the Dolphin is a great plane. It's no more blind in back than the DH2 or FE2, but for some reason those planes are never denigrated in the same fashion as are the Dolphin and DH5. Still, with TrackIR, people are able to look 180 degrees behind them, which would be humanly impossible when strapped in with shoulder harnesses without inertia reels, as with WW1 planes. Unless you are Linda Blair.

I hope someday they either replace or allow us to mod the sound of the Maxims.

Since we're speculating, maybe they're just waiting to video SP until the massive campaign upgrade arrives in December? The one that brings it up to the ROF-style SP career. That's what I'm waiting for.

The DH.5 always gets lambasted for its poor rear vision. The DH.2's was just as awful, but it never gets the same criticism for it. FYI, "Airco" is a post-war label. During the war the company was known as AMC, for Aircraft Manufacturing Company.

You guys need to choose harder photos!

Hello, I'm starting this thread for the purpose of ogling and discussing the various Albatros D-type fighters. I'm not alone as an Albatros fan, so why not coalesce and share photos, info, OFF/WOFF screenshots, etc.? Picking a random photo just to get started, here's a shot of Jasta 30's Gustav Nernst, standing next to Albatros D.III 2124/16. (Be sure to download and save so you can see images full-size.)

Perhaps so! But, you know, to expand upon that a bit, I think the whole "scalding via radiators" thing has been overblown somewhat. All Alb DIIs with an airfoil radiator had them centrally located. As did many DIIIs. And all of the Austrian Albs; I don't think they ever offset them (although I have seen photos of one or two offset). And all the Alb C.IIIs, and C.VIIs, and C.Xs, and C.XIIs, and the Albatros J-types, as well as DFW, Phoenix D.Is, D.IIs, etc. Centrally located rads were quiet common and posed far less danger than gallons of fuel a few feet away with no firewall, or in a tank upon which one sat! I've seen claims that the rads were offset in Albs so that the pilots wouldn't be scalded if the radiator were punctured, but if so, why not move ALL the rads on ALL the models? Were the pilots and observers of Albatros C.XIIs less likely to be scalded by a centrally located radiator than pilots of D.IIIs? And how much scalding would actually occur, anyway? They were wearing uniforms and bundled in heavy flight clothing, gloves, goggles, scarves, and a helmet, with only perhaps part of their faces exposed, surrounded by a 100 mph wind in air often well below zero. In the photo above it's easy to agree that the rads were offset to get rid of the aiming obstructions caused by the radiator plumbing. Two-seaters hadn't the same aiming needs as did single-seaters, so no need to offset them. But this begs the question, why didn't the Austrians offset them? I can't answer that. Here's some interesting information gleaned from Paul Strähle's comments on flying Albatros Ds: "At full-throttle, takeoff power was obtained at 1500 rpm. As the climb to altitude was established, the water for engine cooling heated and expanded, and the excess vented overboard from the radiator that was embedded in the center section of the top wing. This caused vapor to stream overhead and trail behind the airplane until the excess was gone." Based on that recollection, water/steam went over the pilot's head in the slipstream. At least during normal overflow venting, which was probably via the top of the expansion tank. I can't say the same for undesigned venting via bullet holes, though.

Albatros D.III(Oef) Series 53

I agree that's a big reason, Elephant. All open cockpit airplanes have the cockpit padding, even civilian planes never used in combat.

I'm going to opine (i.e., guess, this is not concrete fact) that they were usually strapped in pretty securely. Generally when flying the forces act vertically through one's body, not horizontally, as when turning a car, unless you kicked full rudder and held the wings level. Turbulence can knock you about at times, though. It's likely more for protection when on the ground, with ground crew getting in, getting out, etc., or for the pilot's face if a landing went awry and he turned ass-over-tea kettle. In the air the pilots are swathed in layers and layers of clothing, too, so bumping an edge of wood with your shoulder would be nothing. But on the ground without such clothing layers the padding offered some protection. For the airplane as well, as the coaming prevented the wooden edges around the cockpit from getting chipped or splintered, etc.

Albatros D.Va(OAW). My interest focuses on the planes themselves so I can't tell you who this is or what unit, hopefully someone else can chime in (or maybe I'll learn in Jack Herris' new book). The fuselage is overpainted an unknown (to me) color. It looks as if they spent some time with it, too, as the coverage is very good compared to the scruff and thinly-applied "washes" of Jasta 11 airplanes in spring 1917. Note: OAW wheel valve stem access hatches were oval. The one we can see on the starboard side is rectangular, so likely this machine had a replacement wheel from a Johannisthal-built Albatros.

Great news fellow Albatros fans! Aeronaut Books has just published a new book on Albatros fighters. They also have books on all the Albatros machines. Here's a link to their Alb fighters book, and a flyer below. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1935881523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494820905&sr=8-1&keywords=albatros+fighters+aeronaut+books

Hi, elephant! Yes, those wings do look like that, don't they?

Here's a photo we've probably all seen! Jasta 11 (with Manfred and Lothar von Richthofen's father, Albrecht) next to Manfred's Albatros D.III at Roucourt. But, wait! *IS* that MvR's famous Le Petit Rouge? The answer is no! Le Petit Rouge had a centrally-located airfoil radiator; had a three-quarters asbestos-wrapped pipe leading from the front of the engine to the radiator; and it had a light-colored apparent wooden repair near the attachment point of the aft port center section strut. The plane above has an offset radiator and a radiator pipe that is not wrapped (that we can see), and no such repair. Furthermore, it has covered rocker arm boxes and a nose footstep, the latter of which was seen only on 600- and 750-series Albatros D.IIIs, which began arriving in Jasta 11 in mid-late April 1917. Positive ID for this airplane can't be determined, but I thought it was possible [to be clear, I'm speculating] that this is Kurt Wolff's 632/17, which shared this airplane's features and arrived at Jasta 11 on 19 April 1917. Here is 632/17 taking off, prior to its red overpainting: Here it is after painting, with Wolff: But look at Wolff's wheel covers. They are a lot lighter than those in the top photo... Here is a photo of Le Petit Rouge at Roucourt, taken within the same time period as the top photo.

This is for a Mercedes D.IIIa, not D.III, but they used the same connection.

There's no question the center cable is the tach cable, as I identified via a labled (in German) German drawing I mentioned in my previous post. I'll post that in a second, Lou. Have to find it again in my folders. The Alb DIII and DIII(OAW) were both manufactured in Germany but you guys are no doubt right, there is some technical reason for exactly how the cable was fitted to the engine that we just don't know yet. OAW only built 50 Albatros D.II(OAW)s, and by the time they made the Albatros D.III(OAW)s that jutting cable was gone. My guess is similar to the reason for moving the radiator plumbing, they wanted to keep the pilot's aiming line-of-sight as free of obstructions as possible. If not the reason, it's reasonable to conclude that was a factor.

I'd say it's one cable and there is some ghosting. You can see it with the cross and the rigging diagram, too. And in every photo of different planes there is only one cable, I've never seen two. Also, in that photo, there is another example of this cable still being present while the guns are gone. That thing looks awfully rigid if just dangling in the air. Perhaps it's a metal conduit through which a cable was routed? Just located a German drawing of a Mercedes engine, and sure enough that middle cable is for the tachometer.