Bullethead

Looks more like he was inspired by absinthe :)

Isn't it obvious that WOFF will usher in the Brave New World? The universe won't come to an end on 21 December. Instead, we'll just change our way of dating things. The antiquated BC/AD system will be replaced by AW/PW (ante WOFF and post WOFF).

LOL!! Where'd you get those? And I want one of those gatling guns for my Fee :)

Hot damn, a confirmed sighting of a French 2-seater! Where'd you see it? :)

@ Olham: You really need to look at your tachometer more often. It's about the single most important instrument in any plane with synchronized guns. This is because synchronization only worked reliably within certain RPM bands. If you fired while at the wrong RPM, you could shoot your prop off. That's why the tachometer was so big and mounted at the top center of the instrument panel, so you could easily glance quickly down at it before pulling the trigger. This isn't modeled in OFF but it's something I do anyway just for immersion. @ Lou: I used to fly sailplanes and the slip indicator was a short piece of string taped at its lower end to the outside of the windshield. If you were slipping, it would lean over to the side instead of pointing straight up. It worked the opposite of the ball, however. If the string was leaning to the right, you applied left rudder. The reasion I use the slip indicator in OFF is because if you don't have that centered, your bullets will go off to the side of where you're aiming. So, besides checking my tachometer just before I shoot, I also check the slip indicator. @ Hasse Wind: Yup, that's the 1 thing I like about the SPAD :).

Thanks. I did model my scheme on that particular plane, although I used several references besides that painting. The thing is, Austrian camo is one of the great unknowns facing modelers and skinners these days. The state of knowledge is so bad that Grosz, Haddow, and Schiemer removed the color plates from the latest edition of Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One, much to my disappointment when I received my copy of it. The authors at present are convinced that the colors they had in previous editions of the book are definitely wrong, but they don't yet know enough about the correct colors to offer anything at all right now. And this is in the definitive work on the subject.... So, when I did this skin, I scrounged around the web, followed discussions at the Aerodrome, and finally just took my best guess based on the available information. All I can definitely say is that number of colors in the various patterns are correct and the colors themselves are somewhere within the amorphous area of uncertainty that passes for a general consensus these days. The colors are almost certainly wrong, but they're also almost certainly in the ballpark. Still, I find Austrian camo quite fascinating, at least in its full extent like this. Observe that the wings have alternating bands of 2 different patterns, a dark 5-color and a light 4-color. The fuselage has a medium 6-color at the wing roots and a light 3-color elsewhere. The horizontal tail has a medium 4-color and the vertical tail has the same medium 6-color pattern as the central fuselage. So, 5 different patterns on the same plane using 9 different colors in various combinations, all painted by hand. How can you not love that?

First off, you have to be sure you're arguing from the right assumptions. Did WW1 pilots really have a "crucial need" to know their airspeed? I contend that unless they were doing dead-reckoning navigation, they did not. As evidence, I cite my own experience in OFF, where I can't remember the last time I needed to know more about my airspeed than what my eyes were telling me. And this is sitting at my desk, without any tactile feedback from the seat of my pants, no wind in my face, etc. Seriously, the only instruments I ever use with any regularity in OFF are the slip indicator, the tachometer, and (after a disorienting fight across the lines) the compass. On your list of types of ASIs, you forgot one, though. Some planes had a metal rod with a piece of sheet metal welded to the end of it. When the plane was at rest, the rod hung straight down but as the plane moved, the wind on the sheet metal bent the rod back. Thus, the rod acted as the needle of a gauge and was hung on a strut in front of an arc with various speeds marked off on it.

Oh bah! The Austrian camo was the coolest of the war. It made the German lozenge stuff look dull and unimaginative .

Probably loud as all Hell. The Scharzlose was rather shorter overall than the Spandau but most of the difference was in the barrel length. The receiver, OTOH, seems to have been rather longer but still had the parts the pilot needed to mess with up at the front end. Thus, to put those parts within reach, the breeches had to stick further back into the cockpit.

Because Olham is going on about Austrian Albatri, here's a pic of one of their cockpits with the caption providing info. Note that the caption says "one of three" 153s with "raised guns". "Raised guns" means as you see them here, in the normal German position. All previous OeFFAG Albs (that actually had synchronized guns...) had the guns buried in the fuselage in front of the instrument panel, so they fired below the exhaust pipes instead of above. While this kept smoke and oil spray out of the pilot's face, it also prevented the pilot from doing much about stoppages. Thus, there was great demand by pilots to move the guns up to the German position even if that caused other problems. This "raised" position became standard on the Series 253. The other pic shows the guns in the "low" position. All you can see of them is the ends of their long blast tubes; the guns themselves are buried under the fuselage decking in front of the cockpit. The long blast tubes were another Austrian feature, BTW. You can see their full length in the 1st pic, running over the top of the exhaust pipes. I think these were intended to reduce flash and smoke in the pilot's face. Other things to note in thise pics.... The cokcpit shot is of 153.162, one of the 1st batch of "round-nosed" 153s ordered in October 1918. The other pic is 153.104, one of the last with the original, German-style nose. As you can see, as usual by this point, they were flying it without the spinner. Also note the cowling enclosing the engine. Most Austrian planes had such cowlings but they only used them in Alpine winters to keep the engines from getting too cold. Otherwise, they kept their engines exposed.

Yeah, but at least nobody'd mistake you for an Austrian :).

The Austrian Hiero engines were also very good. The problem was, however, that the Austrians couldn't make enough of either to satisfy demand. They had scads of airframes sitting around waiting for engines all through the war.

I made a mistake in the Austrian Albatros thread: the most common Austrian fighter was in fact the Aviatik D.I by a considerable margin. So, I went through my book on Austrian airplanes and compiled a list of Austrian fighters that actually entered frontline service as more than prototypes. Here it is: Fokker A.III - February 1916 - July 1916 - German-surplus E.IIIs sold to Austria, obsolete already - 12 purchased Brandenburg D.I (aka KD} - Late 1916 to January 1918 - Fast but 3000m ceiling and extremely dangerous flight characteristics - Called "Totschläger" (Killer) and "der fliegender Sarg" (flying coffin) - Armed with 1 gun in pack on upper wing, a few with 1 synchronized - 122 produced Aviatik D.I (aka "Berg") - Mid 1917 to end of war - Very fast, average maneuverability, wings failed in dives - Armed with 1 MG on upper wing fixed at 15^ angle until 1918, then twin syncrhonized - 677 produced in numerous series by many manufacturers Albatros D.II(Oef) Series 53 - May 1917 - Performance slightly superior to German version - Armed with 2 synchronized guns - 16 produced Albatros D.III(Oef) Series 53.2 - June 1917 - August 1917 - Performance slightly superior to German version, plus stronger wings - 45 produced Albatros D.III(Oef) Series 153 - June 1917 to end of war - Performance considerably better than German version - Equipped 1st dedicated Austrian fighter units, formed in mid-1917 - 281 produced Fokker D.II(MAG) - October 1917 to December 1917 (ordered in August 1916) - German 1916 rotary design with 185ph Daimler engine - Utterly obsolete on arrival at front, immediately transferred to training use - ~30-40 produced Phönix D.I - October 1917 - May 1918 - Good but not great, safe and sturdy - 120 produced, 72 still in service August 1918 Phönix D.II - May 1918 to end of war - Good performance but inferior to D.III(Oef) Series 253 - Initial structural problems delayed service entry - 48 produced Albatros D.III(Oef) Series 253 - June 1918 to end of war - All-round excellent performance - ~220 produced The Austrians had huge problems with getting guns and engines to their aircraft factories. In many cases, completed airframes sat uselessly for up to several months before these parts arrived. In fact, many were sent to the front unarmed and had their guns installed by squadron mechanics from whatever they had on hand. Guns were always a big problem for the Austrians anyway. As can be seen above, they didn't have synchronized guns until the latter part of 1917 and it wasn't universal until early 1918. Their Schwarzlose guns weren't great, either, having a low and rather erratic rate of fire that caused problems with synchronizers. In addition, the guns required oiled cartridges which sprayed oil in the pilot's face. Thus, either guns had to be mounted inside the fuselage and out of reach if there was a stoppage, or on top in reach but having to be aimed by leaning well out to the side of the cockpit. But in a number of planes, the pilot had to lean over anyway due to the engine cylinders blocking forward view, which never seems to have been considered very important by Austrian designers. There was also a decided lack of standardization on Austrian production lines. Sequential planes on the lines would be built with different radiators, different gun positions, even different engines, seemingly at random.

From what I gather, the Austrians started negotiating the Albatros deal in the fall of 1916 based on not having any fighter of their own at that point (the pathetic KD was just then entering service). At this time, the Austrians had only heard of the D.II so that's what they originally wanted, but in the course of negotiations they learned the D.III was under development so decided to go with it. Thus, the D.II(Oef) was essentially just a prototype series to get the production line going and to mark time while OeFFAG redesigned the D.III wing structure. But you're right, Austria wasn't very industrialized. They had some brilliant designers in several different fields but lacked the factories to make their designs in the necessary quantity, as well as sufficient raw materials when they did have some factories. But OTOH, they also had about as many total idiots as they had geniuses and the idiots often had more stroke with the cumbersome bureaucracy, so the Austrians wasted a lot of their limited capacity making total crap, too. The Schwarzlose was actually very good in its intended role as an infantry weapon. It was extremely mechanically reliable because it used a blowback action with very few moving parts compared to the Maxim-type, recoil-operated guns. This only really caused it problems when it came to synchronization. First off, it lacked the mechanical linkages of the Maxim-type so there wasn't an easy place to tie in a synchronizer. Second, its ROF was much more variable as a result of inconsistent ammunition, which made controlling the timing of its shots more difficult. And on top of all that, the blowback action relied on having a heavier bolt and spring than the recoil action, which made the Schwarzlose a bit heavier overall. Notice, however, that the worst problems with the Schwarzlose only became apparent in the late-1915 to early-1916 timeframe, when the need for synchronization arose. Prior to then, all anybody had was observer guns and in this role, the Schwarzlose was perfectly adequate, if somewhat heavier and slower-firing than desired. However, the Austrians were able to modify the gun to shoot faster, so (again as an observer's weapon) it wasn't too shabby. Synchronization gave them fits, however. The Austrians hired Fokker to develop a system but the problem exceeded his abilities. Fortunately, the Austrians came up with their own system. Actually, they came up with several different systems, all of which were put into service because each type of aircraft engine required a different device. The problem was, however, that all these mechanisms were high-tolerance devices requiring top-end manufacturing facilities, of which the Austrians didn't have enough. Thus, although they had a working synchronizer by mid-1916, they couldn't build enough of them fast enough to equip every fighter (or, if they had they synchronizer in stock, they might not have any MGs). As a result, even OeFFAG Albatri were shipped off to the front unarmed for the squadrons to do what they could with them. The squadron might have some spare MGs lying around but not synchronizers, so they'd cobble together some retro 1915-looking expedient. My book has pics of OeFFAG D.IIIs armed with 1 MG angled off to the side like in the Bristol Scout, others with 2 guns sticking through the upper wing at an upwards angle, 1 on each side of the central radiator. The standard armament for the Berg was 1 fixed upward-angled gun on the top wing well into 1917. But the blowback nature of the Schwarzlose made its synchronizers rather unreliable anyway. Thus, a standard fitting on Austrian fighters was a wire glued to the inside of the prop blades in line with the guns. As long as this wire was intact, it formed a circuit that illuminated a light on the instrument panel. If this light ever went out, the pilot knew he'd probably shot a hole in his prop and had better break off the action. Luckily, it seems to have take several hits to break a prop completely so this simple device seems to have saved many lives. Despite all this, however, the Austrians finally came up with the perfect synchronizer, better than all other systems before or since. This was the Gebauer Engine Gun, where the gun was driven directly from the engine in the same way as the oil pump. The gun was thus very simple, synchronization was guaranteed, and synchronized rate of fire was WAY higher than possible with conventional (as in stand-alone) guns. Unfortunately, this system wasn't perfected until the latter half of 1918 so never entered service, and the sudden stoppage of military spending after the war prevented it from achieving the post-war success it deserved. On the subject of ROF, don't be deceived by the high number for the German gun compared to the Schwarzlose. When synchronizing a conventional gun, the ROF is always greatly reduced from what the gun can do. This is because it's not a question of interrupting the stream of bullets to let the prop go by, it's a question of timing the gun to fire in an opening between blade passes. Most WW1 aircraft engines ran about 1500rpm in combat, so with 2 prop blades, a blade was going by 3000 times per minute, whereas the gun might fire 800 times a minute at best, if sitting on a ground tripod. As a result, the bullets have to fit between the blades, not the blades between the bullets. This always results in a significant reduction in the gun's ROF, usually in the neighborhood of 40-50%. Thus, even though a gun might have a maximum ROF of 800, it probably could only fire 400-500 in a synchronized mounting.

FWIW, here's what my book says (besides the caption of the pic above)... And from then on, this type of nose was standard and thus was on the Series 253. Meanwhile early Series 153 flew with their spinners removed, leaving a flat nose. It's a shame, really, because I think the German-style spinner nose looks a lot cooler and the Austrian nose spoils the plane's otherwise beautiful lines. As to the sizes of the various engines, the Daimler 185hp in the D.II and D.III Series 53.2 was the exact same size as the 200hp in the D.III Series 153, and from what I can tell, the 225hp of the Series 253 was little or no longer than these. But the spinnerless nose came in with the 153 a good 7 months before the 253 entered production. The change in design of the nose from spinner to spinnerless was really very simple because it didn't involve any structure. It was just replacing 1 sheet metal fairing with another. The original was a truncated cone, the slope of which was continued by the spinner. The new type started at the same attachment points to the main structure but was a short, blunt dome with a hole in the middle for the crankshaft. Otherwise, all Austrian Albatri used the exact same fuselage from the D.II to the Series 253. The only difference between a D.II(Oef) Series 53 and a D.III(Oef) Series 53.2 was the wings. The only difference between a D.III Series 53.2 and a Series 153 was the engine (and the different nose fairing in later 153s). And the only difference between a late 153 and a 253 was the engine again.

The Austrian Alb D.IIIs were definitely good machines, especially the D.III(Oef) Series 253. They were also the only fighters the Austrians had in any real quantity, although "real quantity" in Austrian terms means "precious few" to any other air force. Of this small number of planes, most were total crap. On top of this, they were handicapped by a lack of a synchronized gun mount until well into 1917. So it's not surprising the Austrians really liked their Albatri :). My book on Austrian planes disagrees with the climb numbers. It says: Series 153 (with spinner): 1000m in 2m35s 3000m in 11m30s 5000m in 33min Series 253: 1000m in 3m5s 3000m in 11m20s 5000m in 27m So, the 253 started out with a slower climb but got better at higher altitude than the 153. And even with the numbers shown here, the 253 still climbed better than any other Austrian fighter (most of which were prototypes, not production machines) tested at the July 1918 competition at Aspern.

The Austrians frequently painted planes with red wingtips and white inboard. Sometimes with a 2nd red stripe inboard that, giving their whole flag on each wingtip, as shown here: http://farm1.staticflickr.com/224/448306401_e8cd3b6736_z.jpg There were, of course, a great many variations on this scheme, but the general rule was that red wingtips with white inboard meant Austrian. Not to be outdone in such overt displays of patriotism (ironic in both cases given the weak seams then holding both polyglot nations together), the Italians went in for green wingtips with white inboard, sometimes with red inboard of that, or sometimes even green on 1 tip, red on the other, and white in the middle all across to create their whole flag, like this: http://www.karaya.pl/thumbnails/max/product/473699eea5cee8ad3a81c5989fc2ccf586c345e2.jpg

The Austrians didn't like the propeller spinner on their Albs. Originally, Oesterreichische Flugzeugfabrik AG (Oeffag) built Albs per the German design with the fuselage faired into a spinner ahead of the prop. But the troops didn't like the spinner and often removed it. This was so common that Oeffag redesigned the fuselage to end behind the prop. This change was introduced partway through the production run of the 153 series and was standard in the later 253 series. Here are some pics from Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One by Grosz, Haddow, and Schiemer.

Well, if Lou was still with us in Flanders, the current scheme wouldn't be dangerous. But he's on the Italian Front, where having the wings painted in broad stripes of the national colors was quite common on both sides, and unfortunately his scheme is of the Austrian pattern. So I'm just saying, "when in Rome..."

Very nice job, sir! Keep up the good work.

That's a pretty kite, Lou, but be careful. The Austrians used the red wingtips and white bands just inboard quite extensively so others on your side might shoot you before seeing your roundels. And the Austrians might complain you're not being sporting, wearing false colors. I therefore suggest that you reverse the order of the colors, so the blue is outboard and red inboard, in the same order as the rings of your roundels. That's how the Italians do it, with the green outboard. That way, everybody'd know who's side you're on :).

I'm thinking the 1st one in the airport is a modern replica. Notice the entirely different airfoil sections between the pics. The 1st one has a thick, flat-bottomed airfoil while the 2nd has a thin, highly cambered section. There are also a number of minor detail differences, like the windshield, exhaust pipes, radiator arrangements, and cabane strut shape. HD, your Snoopy collage reminds me of something that's bothered me since I was a little kid watching the "Great Pumpkin" for the 1st time. Snoopy is always said to be flying a Camel but as your pics show, he spends a lot of time shooting in all directions like he's an observer, not a pilot. And I knew, because I built model airplanes, that Camels didn't have swivel guns. But I also knew WW1 planes were subject to a huge amount of variation even within the same make and model, so I recall spending a lot of time looking for Camels with after-market swivel guns installed. I believe this was my 1st-ever military history research project ;). I eventually satisfied myself that Camels had never had swivel guns. The closest they came was the twin Lewises on the nightfighters, which could go up and down but not sideways and backwards. So for a while, I thought Snoopy might have been flying a Dolphin, but decided that didn't fit the bill either. Finally, I decided that Snoopy was really flying a Brisfit and pretending at various times to be both the pilot and the observer, just as I did myself when I sat on my swingset and pretended I was flying a Brisfit :).

I'm good on the laptop I'm using now (while at work--ssssshhhhh). Won't know about my home box until Monday.

On those all too frequent occasions when one of my pilots buys the farm, and he's been around long enough to have survived at least 1 memorable sortie, I tend to have a little ceremony before removing him from the OFF Manager. My ceremony has evolved over time until it's settled on a New Orleans-style funeral with a Dixieland band. So, what I do is crank up this particular track: I remove the file at the "ashes to ashes" part, slam a shot of whiskey as the band cranks up for the march back to the wake, and create my next pilot (and have another shot) by the time the song's over. What do you all do?

I am. The left edge of the top logo is cut off at all times unless I run this window fullscreen. IE9 here.