tttiger

A million years ago, in the first WWI sim I flew (Dawn of Aces, which was all on line) we had volunteer instructors. In fact, on Saturdays we had on line stunt flying contests run by a member who was a real life aerobatics instructor. Pretty amazing! One of the most valuable lessons I learned was, when trying to learn a new airplane, execute repeated Cuban 8s within the length of an airfield. Do lots (as in 100s) of those and that airplane will become a part of you. Guaranteed! I've done it with every new OFF plane I've tried. In fact, I've used it as a training device in every subsequent flight sim I've flown. Cuban 8s within the length of an airfield and, yes, the OFF Camel can do them very nicely.... Here is what a Cuban 8 looks like, along with some other aerobatics you should practice in every plane you fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobatic_maneuver ttt

Go to Workshops/CFS3 Config/Overides and check Disable Clouds (and anything else you want to try disabling -- but try just one thing at a time). The clouds are real FPS killers in every flight sim I've flown. ttt

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft...chine-guns.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Han...un/fgun-pr.html A few useful links. None mention what happens to the spent cases. The 1919 report from Aerodrome Forum notes the used metal links (the Vickers .303 for aircraft went from a cloth belt feed to a disintegrating link feed about the middle of WWI) were simply dropped from the aircraft. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that the empty casing were dropped as well. The military doesn't reload its small arms ammo cases. During WWII, of course, the empty cases were dropped out of the aircraft. You can see them falling in many, many combat films. That's still true. Any ground pounder who has had an attack helicopter firing its minigun overhead knows what it feels like to have hot brass raining down on him, some of it going down his collar :fuk: ttt

Wow! Thanks to both of you! BIG improvement! ttt

LOL, pity there's no real on line way to fly and find out There is no question the DVII is the best in the game. That's was true in real life as well. I can only tell you that in QC (which I don't think counts for much because the AI are much better in Campaigns) I fly head-to-head against AI aces and I've NEVER lost in an SE5a and that includes the early DVIIs. I fly DVIIFs to a draw, however. We just end up going round and round in circles. They can't beat me and I can't beat them. Personally (and very subjectively) I think the DVa is over-modeled. It shouldn't be able to dive as well as it does without snapping a lower wing. But even with that edge, I have no problem killing them in any late war British fighter unless they have me hopelessly outnumbered. But, again, all we can do is fight the AI, which, one-on-one isn't much of a challenge. I started flying human opponents WWI MMP in Dawn of Aces well over a decade ago and quit flying dog fight arenas in IL-2 many years ago. Too many jerks. Air Quake. But it's a shame there isn't even an opportunity to duel each other here. S! ttt

Well, Geeze, Olham, not everyone can write 574 (and counting) posts in a single month. ttt

I bought it last year and, yeah, when you first look at it, it's very pretty. But, after you've flipped through it a few times, you start realizing Makanna has a very short list of stock camera angles and the photos in the book actually are very repetitious. There isn't much here that's creative at all. And his pictures don't tell a story or evoke emotion. He's basically taken a good subject for a pretty calendar and puffed it up into a book. Great photography it ain't. The Cecil Lewis quotes are super, though. They sort of camouflage how superficial the pics are. ttt

The Shuttleworth SE5a, is a real one, not a replica. It was restored (again) last year and is flyable. http://www.pbase.com/stevieb/image/43384641 http://www.eaa.org.za/articles/se5a-pilot-report Notice he puts the elevator trim (the SE had trim tabs) fully nose up before landing. It IS a dream to fly, MK2. Just wish I could fly a real one. ttt

Great screen shots! Yes, it's the best Allied single-seat fighter in the sim! The DVII with the big engine is the only Hun fighter that gives me trouble in an SE5a. ttt

I guess it depends on how you count :blush2: 1. F2b 2. 48 RFC 3. 43 kills 4. 29.78 hours MAJ Sir Keith R. Park (New Zealand) 1. SE5a 2. 84 RAF 3. 32 kills 4. 43.35 hours Capt. Anthony Beauchamp Proctor (South Africa)

You're not spoiling the party But, I think there is more than a bit of "National bias" in your views. Or maybe it's just a language barrier (I wouldn't even attempt to post in a German forum). First, the consensus (I think that's what you mean by "consent") of the views in the Aerodrome forums is my reading of VERY different views with no one agreeing entirely with anyone else. Your conclusion may be different. In any case, there are some lively debates (in fact many on that forum). I'm not sure what you mean you say "The abilities of the SE5a in a dogfight are next to none." When I say something is "next to none" or "second to none," it means that it has no peers; it is the best. If that's what you're saying, I would agree. Every top British and Commonwealth ace (except MacLaren and Collishaw, who flew Camels) was an SE5a pilot. When you say: "A look at the wing's profile of the SE5a instantly reveals that the SE5a only climbed well with sufficient speed. Being slow and out of energy it became hard to manoueuver and unable to climb at all." Isn't that true of EVERY fighter? Perhaps you're just talking about "turn and burn" fighters. The SE5a was an "energy fighter" or a "boom and zoom" fighter. Obviously, it couldn't follow a very agile DR1 through a series of turns but it didn't need to. Once he started bleeding off energy, the pilot broke off and extended and climbed for altitude and the DR1 was left far behind. When the SE5a came back, it had a significant energy advantage while the DR1 was at a serious disadvantage. The difference, of course, was wing loading. Low wing load planes (lighht engine and air frame) always turn better than high wing load (heavy engine and air frame) planes. But the high wing load planes retain energy much better, as long as the energy isn't all lost in excessive turns. The Camel, a much lower wing load plane than the SE5a, turned much better than the SE5a but wasn't nearly as fast. Nor could it climb as well. Flying the Camel in several sims, I have found its worst flaw is horrible pilot visibility (situational awareness). The proof probably is that only about 320 DR1s were built while more than 5,000 Camels and 5,000 SE5as were manufactured. By mid-1918 the DR1 was obsolete and with all of its structural problems it probably was doomed from the start. But, yes, it certainly was the most nimble late war "turn and burn" fighter. But that wasn't worth much. Good discussion in this thread! ttt

Some additional data and discussion on WWI fighters from NASA: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch2-2.htm ttt

First, I believe the range you see on your screen is in feet, not yards. So what you term "484 yards" really is 484 feet or about 160 yards at which the SE opened fire. Those numbers always confuse me because the view in my monitor never is as good as what I know it should be in real life (which is why I don't apologize for using labels). But 484 yards is over a half mile and you wouldn't hit anything with a machine gun mounted on a wood airplane at that range. Even a sniper rifle would be doubtful from a bobbing airplane at that distance. But I could be wrong. Anyway (back on topic): Do a Google search for "DR1 SE5a rate of climb" or visit The Aerodrome web site forum and you will find a huge amount of information and discussion on this topic, Much of it centered around Voss's last fight with 56 Sqdn and whether he could have escaped by climbing away. The consensus seems to be that, while a DR1 may initially (and briefly) have a better rate of climb (it had a low stall speed and very high climb angle but it didn't have much power) than an SE5a, the SE was an excellent climber and VERY fast and over a long ascending pursuit would overtake the DR1, which was slow and not a particularly good climber. So, no, Voss could not have escaped by climbing away because the SE5as would have overtaken him in a long chase. And neither would you In fact, your climb angle of 22 degrees was steeper than the optimal 19-degree climb angle of a real DR1, which may have slowed you down even more. But that depends on the accuracy of the sim. Here's a very interesting study entitled "Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter Aircraft from WWI" http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf A couple of excerpts: "The second anomaly is the Fokker Dr.1, which has a reputation for superior climb and maneuverability. "[it] climbed like a monkey and maneuvered like the devil:” Manfred von Richthofen. The figures show that while the Dr.1 was superior in turn, it was poor in climb, relative to contemporary fighters. It is possible that Richtofen’s opinion of the Dr.1’s climb was due to its 19 degree climb angle which was 20% greater than the airplane he had flown previously, the Albatros D.III. It is also worth noting that the Dr.1 had a fairly low stall speed. The thick airfoil section used gave it a lower stall and thus a greater climb angle and turn rate." and "The Dr.1 clearly excels in maneuvering but could not compete with its contemporaries in terms of speed and climb. Perhaps it is telling that only about 300 were built compared to the thousands of D.VII’s and Sopwith Camels." I'm no engineer and I can't vouch for the validity of this study but it seems credible to me. So, yeah, in your scenario, the climbing SE5a properly overtook the climbing DR1. Hope that helps. Look up some of the Aerodrome forum debates on this topic. No one can give an absolutely definitive answer in terms of feet per second because the data simply isn't available for WWI fighters in the manner it was for WWII fighters, which were tested extensively (and folks even debate those tests). ttt

Pol, great video. I know you had a lot to do with getting the FB2a into the OFF plane set! Olham, The short answer is: Avoid it I've flown all the German planes just to see what I'm up against. You should try the Allied planes just to see what they can (and can't) do. Try flying the F2b in a campaign. Or even QC. Really. I'll bet you fall in love with it. It may even lure you back from The Dark Side. It's my favorite WWI fighter (although I actually score better in the Strutter). It's among the fastest, has a great rate of climb, turns very well, great firepower (Thanks for the twin guns, Pol!), and you can power dive it straight down. Sort of an SE5a on steroids with a twin stinger in it's tail. They were so good (and durable) the RAF kept them in service well into the 1930s as trainers, much longer than any other WWI fighter. I apologize for any sarcasm. It is the lowest form of humor. But it's the only humor I have... ttt

LOL, Olham. There is a HUGE difference between an FE2b: http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/gbritain/raf_fe2.php and an F2b: http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/gbrit...bristol_f2b.php Spend more time researching and less time posting and you might learn some stuff and know what you're talking about. But, hey, if you want to attack a Brisfit with your Tros II, knock yourself out... :tomato2: The RFC will bury you with full honors ttt

The Strutter is, in my opinion, the "uber" fighter plane of the Allied side (I don't fly Hun). My current Strutter pilot (top Australian ace Bob Little; I alwats fly real historical pilots) has 16 missions in 13 days with 34 kills. He made a forced landing (ground fire) behind enemy lines but escaped in two days. Other than that, he hasn't been scratched. There isn't another Allied plane as deadly. The F2b is a close second. My current Brisfit pilot is Keith Park (who commanded 11 Group in the Battle of Britain in WWII and was played by Trevor Howard in the movie). He has 42 kills in 36 missions and was shot down only once. Of you haven't tried the two seaters, the Strutter and the F2b (in their respective time periods during the war) can take on seemingly overwhelming numbers of Boche fighters and always get home with multiple victories. And both carry pretty hefty bomb loads for those rail depots and airfields (unless you're too much of a wimp to conduct ground attacks). In an online WWI sim I flew quite a few years ago (Dawn of Aces, a MMP), the (all human against all human opponents) squad I was in flew only F2bs. If we had had Strutters available for earlier in the war, I'm sure we would have flown them, too. And, yes, we ruled the virtual skies in those two-seat fighters! If I were a German, I would not mess with them ttt

Fantastic collection! Thanks for allowing us to take a peek (and be awed)! ttt

Excellent links (containing even more excellent links)! Thank you! ttt

Would we call him "Captain Yank" or Captain Spad"?

You can fly an All-Sopwith campaign (I would call it a career) in Naval 9. They flew the Strutter, Pup, Tripe and Camel. I think it's the only unit that flew only Sopwiths and they flew all of them. With your name...it's a natural! Tommy Sopwith considered the RNAS his best customer and they got his new planes before the RFC. ttt

Actually, both Talbot and his gunner Gunnery/Sgt. Robinson were awarded MOHs: Robinson and Talbot's MOH Citations: ROBINSON, ROBERT GUY Rank and organization: Gunnery Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Marine Aviation Force Place and date: Pittham, Belgium, 14 October 1918. Entered service at: Chicago, Ill. Born: 30 April 1896, New York, N.Y. Citation: For extraordinary heroism as observer in the 1st Marine Aviation Force at the front in France. In company with planes from Squadron 218, Royal Air Force, conducting an air raid on 8 October 1918, G/Sgt. Robinson's plane was attacked by 9 enemy scouts. In the fight which followed, he shot down 1 of the enemy planes. In a later air raid over Pittham, Belgium, on 14 October 1918, his plane and 1 other became separated from their formation on account of motor trouble and were attacked by 12 enemy scouts. Acting with conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in the fight which ensued, G/Sgt. Robinson, after shooting down 1 of the enemy planes, was struck by a bullet which carried away most of his elbow. At the same time his gun jammed. While his pilot maneuvered for position, he cleared the jam with one hand and returned to the fight. Although his left arm was useless, he fought off the enemy scouts until he collapsed after receiving 2 more bullet wounds, one in the stomach and one in the thigh. TALBOT, RALPH Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps. Born: 6 January 1897, South Weymouth, Mass. Appointed from: Connecticut. Citation: For exceptionally meritorious service and extraordinary heroism while attached to Squadron C, 1st Marine Aviation Force, in France. 2d Lt. Talbot participated in numerous air raids into enemy territory. On 8 October 1918, while on such a raid, he was attacked by 9 enemy scouts, and in the fight that followed shot down an enemy plane. Also, on 14 October 1918, while on a raid over Pittham, Belgium, 2d Lt. Talbot and another plane became detached from the formation on account of motor trouble and were attacked by 12 enemy scouts. During the severe fight that followed, his plane shot down 1 of the enemy scouts. His observer was shot through the elbow and his gun jammed. 2d Lt. Talbot maneuvered to gain time for his observer to clear the jam with one hand, and then returned to the fight. The observer fought until shot twice, once in the stomach and once in the hip and then collapsed, 2d Lt. Talbot attacked the nearest enemy scout with his front guns and shot him down. With his observer unconscious and his motor failing, he dived to escape the balance of the enemy and crossed the German trenches at an altitude of 50 feet, landing at the nearest hospital to leave his observer, and then returning to his aerodrome. They belonged to what probably was the least experienced aviation unit in the entire war (it was in action for only three weeks when the war ended): Between October 14 and November 11, the Marines carried out a total of 14 bombing missions against railway yards, canals, supply dumps and airfields - always flying without fighter escort. During their tour in France from August 9 to November 11, Marines of the 1st Aviation Force participated in 57 missions. They dropped a total of 33,932 pounds of bombs, at a cost of four pilots killed, and one pilot and two gunners wounded. They scored confirmed kills of four German fighters and claimed eight more. During its brief period in combat, the force earned a total of 30 awards, including Talbot's and Robinson's Medals of Honor and four Distinguished Service Medals.

The Vickers was the primary British and Commonwealth ground heavy machine gun through WWII and Korea. The Lewis Gun and, of course, the Bren, were lighter infantry weapons. All fired .303. By the Battle of Britain, Spits and Hurris all were armed solely with .30 caliber Brownings firing the .303 (yup, the same bullet used in WWI) and US early WWII fighters carried Brownings in .30-06, that bullet adopted in 1906. The gun itself originally was the water-cooled M1917 (you guessed it: WWI) that led to the air cooled M1919. The Browning was considered more reliable than the Vickers, especially once they started mounting guns in the wings where the pilot could not reach them to try to clear jams. It was acknowledged in WWI that the .30 cal (or German 8mm) did not create enough damage as a fighter aircraft weapon and it became even more obsolete by the beginning of WWII when air frames were much more sturdy. By mid-WWII the .30 had pretty much disappeared as the gun for fighter aircraft, replaced by the .50 and the 20mm. The big difference in WWII aircraft armament was larger calibers (the Browning .50 is WWI vintage but much too heavy for WWI aircraft) and higher rates of fire. Destructive power in an aircraft gun is measured by how much weight in lead can be put into a target within a given period of time. Obviously, that favored large calibers and high rates of fire. But the .30s that were still used at the beginning of the war fired exactly the same bullets that were used in WWI. And the bullets were all of pre-WWI design. They remained unchanged for more than half a century. Lots of interesting stuff here. Although it's WWII-oriented it traces the development of aircraft guns: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Han...un/fgun-in.html ttt

Uncle Al, We went through this on your theory that machine guns jam because they overheat, which, of course, they don't. This is yet another statement that is absolutely incorrect. The .303 Mark VII bullets used in Vickers and Lewis MGs in WWI were exactly the same as the ones used in WWII. Same powder (cordite). Same shape and weight bullet. Same velocity. Same muzzle energy. Same ballistics. Same everything. Ditto the 8mm German round. Ditto the US .30-06. All were replaced in the 1950s by the 7.62 NATO round, which had very similar ballistics (in fact the bullet is exactly the same as the .30-06 -- which was adopted in 1906 and was copied from the German Spitzer round). I agree you can't hit much with a machine gun at 400 yards if it's attached to a bobbing and very light airplane. What was different in WWII was (generally) the gun platforms (the aircraft) were heavier and more stable and better able to handle the harsh vibration of the machine guns. It had nothing to do with the bullets. They were exactly the same in both wars (except I doubt they had API -- armor piercing incendiary rounds -- in WWI but even API ballistics are pretty much the same as ball ammunition). I'm not going to debate this with you. But, please don't put out bad information. Look stuff up. Google is your friend. So is Spell Check (it's prone, not prown and arcing, not arching). Aloha, ttt

I have TrackIR 3 Pro (with Vector support, you know you need to buy that separately?) and it runs just fine on XP (can't speak to Vista). The latest drivers (created in October) are 4.1.036 Final and that's what I'm using. Sounds like you are using the same drivers. I've found sometimes when TIR is getting cranky it helps to reinstall the same drivers you've been using. You might try that. Otherwise, Naturalpoint has its own forums and you might ask there. Good luck! ttt

LOL, well, I guess my point was about the style (not to copy the text...sheesh, of course I got your point): The wording doesn't have to be flowery and the typing can be atrocious (with over strikes) and hand-written corrections are allowed. The dog-eared corner makes it even better. Looks more authentic than a "cleaned up" version :yes: And I figured maybe a few folks never had seen this. Aloha, ttt