Bullethead

You don't have to stand up, just sit up straight . Since the Superpatch, both SPADs turn very well. Don't be afraid to use that, especially because it compensates for their rather lackluster roll rate. Fighting in the vertical requires a good roll rate or a good turn rate at high speed. The SPADs have the latter instead of the former, so fly accordingly. The 2 SPAD models need to exploit this turn rate in different ways. With the VII, you need to use it to set up good, short-range snapshots for your single gun into the enemy cockpit. In the XIII with 2 guns, you can saw wings off so can settle for the more traditional stern position.

Welcome aboard, Slipstream! New guy buys the drinks To be honest, I find it very difficult to rip the wings off a plane myself. And this is with realistic flight models and structural failures enabled, and deliberately trying to break the planes in QC to know where their limits are. I have only been able to break planes by doing things I would never do in actual combat. Hence, it never happens to me in the real thing, and as a result, I have no problem with it never happening to the AI. The AI here is good, so knows where to draw the line. If you're ripping your wings off, therefore, I submit that you're doing something wrong. I also don't see a difference in AI vs. player engine power. Humans have a natural tendency to enduce more drag than is necessary, such as by using 2 controls at once. Read your Shaw. Bank, then pull. Move the joystick like a chess rook, never like a bishop. You'd be surprised how much difference this makes in getting more vertical out of you plane. I submit that the AI is smart enough to do things Shaw's way, and thus will keep its E better than humans who don't follow this rule. All in all, it seems to me that the AI flies right on the edge of its plane's envelope, but never over it. Most humans can't hold so fine a line, so are either below it and the AI out-performs them, or are across it and thus break their planes or stall out. But if you can hold that line (which means you have carnal knowledge of your plane's envelope, something that only comes with experience), you'll find the AI doesn't do anything supernatural, and that you can match it move for move.

In case you didn't know, the owner puts the flag up to tell the passing postman to pick something up, and the postman folds it down to show he's done so. This is in case you have only outgoing but no incoming mail; otherwise the postman won't stop, which is most of the time except at the end of the month when the bills come. I agree. The AI often fights long after I'm willing to call it a day and he should realize it's a lost cause. But not always, especially if you're a Fee pilot.

Remember the opening scene of Dirty Harry, where he's got the robber cornered but admits to forgetting whether he's fired 5 or 6 times, and asks, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" The robber said, "I gots to know" and Clint's hammer falls on a spent cartridge. THAT'S why. Remember, the side with the twin Spandaus lost . So if you feel like your ACM and marksmanship skills need a crutch, by all means fly for the Kaiser in 1917, or join one of the 1st Camel, SE5, or Brisfit squadrons. If you just want to put a toe in at the mid-deep are, try a SPAD VII or Pup. But if you're a real man, you'd fly the Fee or even the DH2 .

The most-challenging mid-war fighter to be successeful in is the DH2 in those squadrons that were stuck with it into June 1917. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts . Next to that, it's the FE2, but if you can hang with it, you get the Brisfit in the autumn of 1917 . The SPAD VII is actually easer to be successful in than the Pup, because the SPAD can just leave the fight if it wants to, but the Pup can't. As to the difficulty of shooting anybody down, welcome to the world of 1-gun Entente fighters in 1917. It's about time you habitual Huns took up that challenge . The synchronized Vickers shoots noticeably slower than the Spandau; bursts of 1 second typically only fire 6 rounds. Trust me, you will NEVER run out of ammo, no matter how many fights you have, because the gun doesn't shoot fast enough. You can get 2-3 kills every sortie and still come home with 75% of your ammo. I usually only take about 75% ammo to save some weight. To be successful in a 1-gun Entente 1917 fighter, you have to become a very good shot. ONLY aim for the cockpit because you don't fire enough bullets to hurt anything else. I'd say 80% of my kills with such planes have been pilot hits and the rest have been force-landings due to lamed engines. I only get a flamer once in a blue moon and NEVER shoot off large pieces. You have to adjust your tactics to get a lot of cockpit shots. Eschew getting on the enemy's tail in favor of high-deflection snapshots. The closer to 90^ deflection, the more of the cockpit is exposed. Best of all is a shot into the top view of an Albatros, where anything between the prop and the headrest either kills or maims. You have to do this because you don't put out enough lead to do real damage otherwise.

Remember, this is an Irishman writing when Ireland was occupied, so anybody killing Englishmen is technically a friend . Why do you think us Scots were always in bed with the French? It's the fight that matters, not the cause. It's a Celtic thing.....

Just remember, by the time Jasta 4 gets the D.VII, it's in a "quiet sector". What makes life there interesting is that its airfield is right amongst the trenches. If you want 1918 at its wildest, try 41 Squadron (SE5s) on 22 or 23 March 1918. And IMHO, the SE5 is a rural US home mailbox. This is the tin box with curved top on a post out at the side of the road, with your address in badly faded stickers on the side). One of these days, I'm going to skin an SE5 with its nose painted as such a mailbox . I honestly try to avoid killing all the enemies. In real life, it rarely happened so if there's been enough blood to satisfy honor, I'm content to let the rest go even if I could kill them. But I agree, sometimes they just ask for it by continuing to fight long after they should have left, so then there's nothing for it but to exterminate them.

Well, to be more specific, the D.VII faced 3 main enemy fighters: Lots of SPAD XIIIs, lots of SE5s, and a lesser number of Camels. There are also a large number of Brisfits about but we have a "live and let live" understanding and go our separate ways. Compared to the enemy scouts, the D.VII stacks up like this (IMHO): Speed The D.VII is somewhat slower than the SPAD XIII and SE5 on the level and significantly slower in dives, but is somewhat faster than the Camel in both areas. IOW, the Camel is the only plane the D.VII can disengage from using speed. However, if the SPADs and SEs aren't much higher than you are, it'll take them a fair amount of time to run you down. This is only useful as you 1st approach the lines, however, where you still have a reasonably clear line of retreat run back to flak concentrations and friendly flights. Once at or across the lines, in 1918 there's generally no such thing as a clear line of retreat although sometimes you get lucky. So be aware that once you're near the lines, if you get into a fight with SPADs and SE5s, generally you only survive by killing them all. Turn The D.VII can't turn with the SPAD XIII or the Camel, although it out-turns the SE5. High-Speed Zooms The SPAD is considerably better at this than the D.VII, and the SE5-Viper is slightly better. Regular SE5s are about the same as the D.VII, and the D.VII is considerably better than the Camel. Low-Speed Zooms The D.VII is all over the Camel and SPAD XIII here, somewhat better than the regular SE5, and about equal with the Viper SE5. Roll Rate The Camel is the best, then the SE5s, then the D.VII, and then the SPAD. Sustained Climb If you have the time and space available to try to outclimb your enemy (rare commodities in 1918), this only works against the Camel and SPAD above about 6,000 feet. Below that, the SPAD is your equal and the Camel is better. Regular SE5s are about the same as you all the way up and the Vipers are a bit better. Besides, I've found that you really don't want to get much above 13,000 feet anyway--above that, the D.VII can't go fast enough to fight very effectively. Note that this is rather low by 1918 standards. So, bottom line..... I fight Camels in the vertical regardless speed or altitude. I fight fast SPADs in the horizontal and slow SPADs in the vertical. SE5s are close matches to the D.VII (especially the Vipers) so do whatever works best at the time, but don't be afraid to out-turn them because you can.

My experience is from both sides. As I'm seeing it, the SPAD XIII can out-turn a D.VII at all speeds, whether I or the AI is flying it. However, the SPAD XIII loses its vertical ability sooner than the D.VII (which doesn't ever seem to lose it). This is measured by how much height you gain in a zoom from a given starting speed. Above about 80 knots, the SPAD XIII can out-zoom the D.VII, although the D.VII can hang on its prop at the top and still nail a higher-zooming SPAD if the starting speeds are close to 80 knots. Between about 80-70 knots, they go about the same height but the D.VII's prop-hanging ability gives it a significant edge. Below about 70 knots, the D.VII really out-zooms the SPAD XIII. But all this time, right down to stall speed, the SPAD XIII can turn inside the D.VII at the same speed. So, if you're in a SPAD XIII and are fighting D.VIIs, you want to keep the fight at high speeds where you have advantages in both zoom and turn. But if you slow down, all is not lost. You can just switch styles and fly like you're in a Pup vs. an Albatros D.III. If you're in the D.VII, you want to sucker the SPAD XIII to blow its speed. You can't quite turn with him then, but you can outzoom him, so you fly in the vertical doing half-Cuban-8s and such while he more or less circles below you. Under no circumstances should try to flat-turn against a SPAD XIII, because he'll get around faster than you and end up on your butt. But the cool thing is, the D.VII can do respectable zooms and prop hangs at ridiculously low speeds, so you can take your vertical fight down to zero altitude. IOW, you have no hard deck in an engagement. The D.VII isn't the best at anything (except maybe low-speed zooms and prop-hangs), but it's very good across the board. Most other planes are good in only 1 or 2 areas and noticeably worse in others. Thus, most other planes only have 1 major fighting style which plays to their strength and if that doesn't work a certain adversary, they're in for a hard time. The D.VII, OTOH, is a jack-of-all-trades. No adversariy's forte is significantly better than the D.VII's capability in that area, and the D.VII can usually do several things better than its opponent. Thus, the D.VII pilot can pick tactics suited to fighting particular types of enemy planes, and if you do that right, you have the advantage in the fight no matter what you're facing.

And if all else fails, the SPAD XIII can out-turn the Fokker D.VII, although at low speeds it can't go vertical as well.

As I understand things, the Taube created a lot of its own problems in this regard. It was an attempt to merge wing warping with hinged ailerons. The warping bits of the wing were the rearward, outboard extentions of the trailing edge, making a sort of faux aileron, which is where the leverage problems came from. Same with the horizontal tail's faux elevator. The Wrights OTOH (and just about everybody else who built a wing-warper) twisted the whole wing box from end to end. This is mechanically rather easier for a variety of reasons, not least being that the "aileron" surface area = total wing area, so you don't have to move it very much to get the desired effect.

I ordered direct from NaturalPoint and had no trouble at all, so you I suggest you do that. You might want to get TIR5 instead of TIR4. I don't know what the difference is in hardware, but future software upgrades might soon stop being compatible with TIR4, as they already are with TIR3. IOW, get the newer stuff and it will be useful longer. Be sure to download the TIR5 software if you get TIR4--it's way better than the TIR4 software. Also, whatever model you get, be SURE to get the Pro Clip. The most common problem folks have with TIR is when they use the regular clip, because the signal:noise ratio can easily get too low. You have to turn off lamps behind you, be sure there's nothing shiny behind you, and don't have a window at your back. This is all because with the regular clip, the little camera gizmo on top of your monitor is in active mode, shining IR out to bounce off reflectors on your head. Thus, it's looking for rather weak signals and can get confused by other IR-reflective or emittive objects behind you. With the Pro Clip, OTOH, the active IR sources are on your head and the camera gizmo is in passive receiving mode. The camera thus knows only to look for bright point IR sources in a specific configuration, so is MUCH better able to tell signal from noise. As a result, you can leave the lights on and don't have to remodel your computer room. But you have to tell the software that you've got the Pro Clip--the default is the regular clip. Anyway, TIR is the greatest thing since bottled whiskey. The regular view system in CFS3 (and therefore OFF) leaves much to be desired, but TIR makes it perfect.

Well, having modern instruments means 1 thing: it's flying today or has in the recent past. You kinda need those things to get airworthiness certificates and such. AFAIK, there are no original Taubes left, but I know there's at least 1 flying replica--I saw it at an airshow once. So this is either that replica or another like it. BTW, here's what I heard from talking to the pilot of the replica Taube: The reason for the steering wheel was the wing warping. Having a wheel was almost required, at least if the fuselage wasn't much wider than the pilot. Wing warping involves bending many pieces of wood despite weathervaning forces trying to keep them in place, and the wood bits are stout enough to hold up the weight of the plane. You need some leverage for that. Part of the leverage comes from the center pylon and vertical struts out near the warping bigs of the wing, but that wasn't enough. The rest of the leverage had to be in whatever the pilot held. Having a long, tiller-like joystick with lots of travel wasn't an option in narrow fuselages, so instead they had steering wheels with low gear ratios. A pilot might have to turn the wheel a couple times to establish even a gentle bank, or so I've read. Another interesting thing about the Taube was that it also had a warping horizontal tail instead of a hinged elevator. The only hinged control surface was the rudder. The pitch control was therefore pretty limited, because it was all arm strength with little help from back or legs (no gearing for pitch). You had to be a body builder to pitch up very much at all, and you couldn't pitch down much because the steering wheel was stopped by the instrument panel, plus you had even less leverage when pushing. Thus, the Taube couldn't do loops or even steep climbs, and didn't have much of a dive angle, either. The pitch control was mostly for getting the proper attitude for landing--you couldn't hold up "elevator" very long at all. If you wanted to climb, you increased throttle. If you wanted to descend, you throttled back. All in all, a beautiful but extremely unmaneuverable plane. Or so I hears it.

Yeah, but in a good way . I like it there .

I need to explain my answers. The questions were phrased as "after climb-out", which I take to mean flying in realtime. After all, the whole purpose of warping is to avoid the tedious climbing. So if I'm going to warp, I do it the instant my last flight member is airborne and the game says it's now possible. This happens well before I've completed 1 circle of the airfield and can still count the leaves on trees. So the real question is, am I going to warp or not? I don't fly prior to 1917 because there's not enough action and the planes are all anemic (and some of the main fighters are also outright dangerous to fly). In 1917, I almost always warp. Even though warping robs you on altitude, I do it anyway because in this timeframe I only fly for the Entente (I'm not into padding my score with helpless Fees and Quirks) and it's perfectly legit to have the Germans well above me most of the time because they climb better. Warping in 1917 is MUCH less fraught with problems than in 1918. Sure, you're lower than you'd like to be, but A Flight is almost always right there above and ahead of you, and they almost always follow through with the briefed mission. The only times I don't warp in 1917 are if I'm flying a SPAD or Pfalz, where warping is suicidal due to the loss of altitude it entails, or if I'm attacking a nearby ground target and want to stay low to avoid attention. In 1918, I almost never warp. First off, warping in 1918 is problematic--the game often crashes on me. Maybe this is due to the sheer number of planes, maybe it's becasue the various squadrons can't agree on where the front lines are. Second, the problem with A Flight going astray is much more common in 1918 than it is in 1917. If you warp in 1918 and the game doesn't crash, you'll often come out of it in the midst of a huge herd of enemies with A Flight nowhere to be seen because they peeled off and left you long ago while you were warping. Thus, I only warp in 1918 if I'm on a defensive patrol far behind friendly lines, where the density of airplanes is at 1917 levels and doesn't crash the machine, and even then I still don't do it in a SPAD or Pfalz. When I'm flying realtime in 1918, I notice that A Flight leaves the circuit after only 1-2 laps and while still at treetop level. They fly off while remaining low while I climb well above them and fall slightly behind. As we approach the 1st waypoint before the objective, A Flight starts to climb steeply but doesn't slow down any, and sometimes they actually get above me and ahead (by this point, I'm about as high as my plane can go and still have enough macho to fight effectively). I'd say this happens about 1/3 - 1/2 the time. But the rest of the time, before they climb so high, or by this point if they have climbed, they usually go haring off after something known only to themselves and I have to go on without them. As OBD has said, this thing with A Flight going astray is a known issue that's being worked on as we speak. However, it's what happens in the game right now, so I have to base my answer on what I see. So, as it stands right now, in 1918 it seems coordinating with A Flight is usually a forelorn hope. About the only way you end up with A Flight is if you are based at or near the lines in a busy area, so both of you get sucked into the same huge fight before A Flight has a chance to go off on its own. In 1917, however, I usually have no problems staying near A Flight, warping or not. They seem much less likely to go astray. Coordinating with bombers is much easier than with A Flight, regardless of time, because bombers behave predictably. This doens't mean it always works, but at least you can count on them being in a given area at a given time. As has been been mentioned, there's a discrepancy between what the briefing says, what the waypoints show, and what happens during flight. The waypoints always show a rendezvous with the bombers about 1/2way to the target, but the briefing says they're already over my field and that's where they are when I take off. AFAICT, the bombers only care about the waypoint where they separate from you to go home--the rendezvous waypoint is completely ignored. So, the bombers start at operational altitude right overhead and they don't wait for you. This forces you to forego circling your field gaining altitude--you have to set off at once climbing as best you can while staying fast enough not to fall too far behind. In 1917, when warping doesn't crash my computer, I avoid this problem by warping ASAP, which puts me right with the buffs whenever I come out of warp. In 1918, however, it CAN cause problems. Warping isn't a good idea but most of the squadrons I fly for are based very close to the front, where going anywhere without gaining some altitude beforehand is suicide. So, I take the time to make couple of circuits and climb to about 5000' before I head after the bombers. By this point, the bombers are long gone and I have to try to catch them. Usually, they're under severe attack by the time that happens, if they're not dead already.

In the c:\OBDSotware\CFSWW1 Over Flanders Fields\aircraft folder, find the folder that ends in "_Sqd" for the plane you want to change. For example, the FE2b_Sqd folder. It's the only folder for a given type of plane that doesn't end in a number. In that folder, open the file (airplane x)_Sqd.xdp in a text editor (FE2b_Sqd.xdp, for example). Up at the top of this file, find the line that starts with "<General Allegiance=...". This is usually the 3rd line from the top, just below <UnitData>. Go to the end of this line and the 3rd item from the end should be "Category=tactical_bomber". Change this to "fighter_bomber". Of course, back up the original file first :). I have found nothing but good to come of this as regards the Fee. They don't do anything stupid, they don't stall, etc. However, they don't go trying to chase Albatri around either. What they do is stay in the fight and stay together, instead of running away in all directions like they do with the "tactical_bomber" category. They mostly fly in circles, which effectively become a Lufbery. What I do is give them the H command and they tend to circle around me keeping my 6 clear while I fly more aggressively and actually do some ACM and chase the Albatri. NOTE that I only fly the Fee in fighter squadrons. I don't know what happens if you try this for bomber Fee squadrons.

Escorting happened starting early in WW1, but from what I understand it wasn't an everyday occurance. It was rather hard to coordinate between the squadrons on the ground unless they were co-located or nearly so, and it was even harder in the air because of the lack of radios. Plus, there were way more 2-seaters than there were scouts, so even if escorting was on the agenda, most of the 2-seaters would still have been without. Each country handled this problemin different ways. The Germans rarely crossed the lines in daylight except with lone recon planes, which for the most part relied on flying at extreme altitude for protection. The Brits crossed the lines as default, but instead of providing direct escorts, they usually had a small number of scouts patrolling a large area in a (usually vain) attempt to keep the Hun fighters out of it so 2-seaters could work undisturbed within it. Until about 1918, there weren't enough good scouts to make this very effective, however. Thus, most escort missions were actually other 2-seaters from the same squadron, say 1 RE8 with a camera surrounded by several others without, just there for their firepower. This tended to just make it a more target-rich environment for the Germans. The French did things rather like the Brits, except they built specialized escort "fighters". Despite the name, these things were at least 2-seaters and often twin-engined. For example, the Caudron R.11, with 2 engines, 5 MGs, and 3 crew, which mostly flew alongside single-engined, 2-seat Breguet 14 bombers as escorts. As to the tactics used by 2-seaters in OFF, that's a function of the AI. There are several threads about this (search for "Fighting Rolands" for the most recent). The bottom line, however, is that most 2-seaters have the tactical_bomber AI, whose sole move is to run away. This works OK for conventional 2-seaters where the gunners in 1 plane can cover the blindspots of the others in the formation, but it doesn't work for Fees and Quirks, which lack conventional rear gunners. I fly Fees a lot and I have changed the AI of my flight to fighter_bomber. This IMHO provides far more realistic results than the default.

That's nothing. Check out this abortion... The Pemberton-Billings PB-31. You might recall that Pemberton-Billing was a rather outspoken MP whose favorite subject was Home Defense. He didn't think the establishment was doing a good enough job making airplanes for the mission so he built his own. This thing actually flew a couple times....... Armed with a 1pdr rocket gun plus 2 Lewises and a searchlight in the nose. The enclosed, bulky cabin was to help enable the thing to stay airborne for 18 HOURS!!!! Needless to say, this is a proud member of the collection at the Museum of Diseased Imaginings

I'm trying to learn how to make airplanes in Gmax, but can't get past the 1st step of getting the background images and dimensions box set up. The 1st question I have is, why do you want the nose of the plane pointing to the right in the Left view? That would make you look at the right side of the plane, not the left. 2nd Question: I was trying to follow the proceedure in that tutorial Stumpy recommended. I made my images 1024x1024 and positioned the airplane drawing within this so that the intended CG was in the center, marked by a red cross at the 511th and 512th rows and columns. You can see the results attached. However, when I load these images into Gmax, the red crosses are not in the center of the grid 0,0,0, but off somewhat to a greater or lesser extent in each view. How do you nudge the image around so that the red crosses fall on 0,0,0? The methods for doing this discussed in the various tutorials I've read don't work, or at least I can't make them work. I have some experience with Blender. That has commands where you can directly scale and nudge the background image itself. IOW, you 1st draw the dimensions box, then load the image, then scale and nudge the image to fit the dimensions box by typing values into a popup for the background image. Is there something similar in Gmax? If so, I can't find it. Instead, the tutorials say that if you use "Lock Pan/Zoom" in the background image menu, this makes the viewport pan and zoom commands apply to the background image. This I find to be untrue. Instead, it locks the image to the 3D objects so all move together and nothing changes. Anyway, I'm pretty confused here, and until I can get the background image issues sorted out, I can't go further, so please tell me how this works. Thanks.

Never mind, I figured it out. It's actually a lot simpler than the tutorials made it sound. It goes like this: 1. Load your PREPARED background images (made so they have a 2-pixel wide cross at the desired CG of the airplane, and this cross is in the exact center of the background image. 2. Make your dimensions box. 3. Zoom and pan the top view until the dimensions box matches the wingtips of the background image. Then lock zoom/pan in that view. 4. Zoom and pan the side view until the dimensions box matched the length of the background image, and lock zoom/pan in that view. 5. Zoom and pan the end view as above, and lock zoom/pan. 6. Seemingly unnecessary. Move the box around until it outlines your background image in all views. 7. Freeze and hide the dimensions box. Only look at it again if you think things have gotten out of kilter. Delete it at the end.

Howdy All- I just asked Erik, the founder/owner of Combat Ace, if it would be possible for him to subdivide the skins database into several categories to make it easier to find specific skins. He said this is possible, but only wants to do it once. So I've started this poll to see how all the end-users of the database feel. After a couple weeks, I'll send him the results. Granted, at present you can use the search function, but that's really only good if you now the artist's forum ID, and some of those are a bit unintuitive. Thus, I find it easier to page through stuff. Problem is, this can be difficult when some really prolific skinners uploade several months of (excellent) work. So, the question is, do you think subdividing the database is a good idea, and if so, how would you do it? HOWEVER, if doing this would make OBD have to pay more to live here, then speak up and I'll forget I ever mentioned this. **Edit** ... and remember when you guys come up with an ubber terrific sorting idea, make sure you elect someone to help me sort out the aircraft because honestly I can't tell the difference between a tail wheel and a nose cone when it comes to early era / vintage crates.

I'll show you conservative.... Who needs a left wing? It was a boring sortie on a rare beautiful day, so on the way home I decided to have some fun and buzz the local village. And I mean REALLY buzz it, as in swoop down at high speed, touch the wheels on the road, and roll/bounce right to the edge of town scattering chickens in all directions, then pull up just before the 1st houses. Well, that was the plan. I left my lower left wing behind on the eave of the 1st house as I was doing my pull-up. I was still doing more than 100 knots at about a 45^ upwards trajectory when it happened. As my momentum carried me up, the Albatros started rolling left and by the time I had full right controls in, roll had accelerated. But at that point, it started slowing down again. It stopped after 2 complete revolutions and I found myself rightside up and under fairly decent control. I could just barely keep the thing level and maintain altitude but I couldn't entirely stop the tendency to yaw to the left. By this point, I was about 500' AGL at about 80 knots. I decided to land in a nearby field, picking one at about 10 o'clock, which is where the left yaw was taking me. I pointed the nose down and reduced power and sure enough, I made a nice approach and a 2--point landing at a survivable sink rate and speed. At this point, I shut the motor off because I was curving across the field toward a stand of trees. Unfortunately, as I slowed down, the ailerons and rudder lost effectiveness before the plane slowed down enough for the remaining wings to lose theirs. Thus, the left turn steepened and the plane slowly rolled over onto its left side. On the plus side, the steeper turn and increased braking from the fuselage side dragging made me miss the trees. On the minus side, I was in sickbay for several days. Still, any landing you can still breathe after is a good one. Drinks on me . I've seen an AI plane flying along minus a lower wing once and it really surprised me. I shot the lower right wing off a Fee and it immediately spun down and away so I paid it no more mind and went after another. But lo and behold, it recovered and flew away safely. By the time I realized this, it was too late to go chase it down, so I ended up not getting that kill. I'd chalked this up to the Fee's inherent stability. Nice to know the Albatros can do it, too.

Great painting/pic, Flynn. Nice action shots, Olham. Another great skin, BB. Now my humble contribution. I was fighting some SE5 ace and we were in a hard left turn with me on the outisde track. I cut in and gave him a good burst in the belly, intending to pass just under him and yoyo up and over. Unfortunately, my burst sawed his right wing off so he flopped over right onto me at my closest point of approach. I managed to snap this pic just before everything went black....

Anybody else gonna vote on this?

My credit card is getting restless.....