Hauksbee

Now that's cold!

BH,is that blood or hydraulic fluid all over the canopy?

Ooooooohhh! I must have one!

A while back, there was a most excellent History Channel program on the Battle of Agincourt. Two guys set themselves the problem of determining whether or not the English longbow was as deadly to knighthood as was claimed. They went out to the field of Agincourt, and discovered that it is very, very much the same as when the battle took place. With metal detectors they looked for arrow heads and found two badly rusted and corroded "bodkin points": the typical military issue point common at the time. The bodkin point was four-sided (a long, skinny pyramidal shape) that necked down and had a cup-like socket that took the shaft of the arrow. (Russell Crowe's 'Robin Hood' has a brief shot of armorers with a crimping tool making fresh arrows for the fight) After a spectrographic analysis of the steel (a relatively soft steel at that) they proceeded to make some repilcas. I won't detail the makings of a yew longbow, but they did and shot several arrows to determine how many foot pounds of energy arrived on target. With that known, they did a 'drop-test' with the arrow head and tested it against a typical piece of steel that would have been used in French armor. The arrow point bent over every time because the arrow points were soft steel to facilitate mass production (government contract, and not intended to be retrieved and reused) and armor was finest quality purchased by wealthy individuals There was not a hope in hell of penetrating good quality plate armor and taking a knight off his horse. Suddenly, the legend of English archers sweeping the field of French knights goes out the window. So, how did the English win, and more to the point, how did the French lose so badly? Henry positioned his army with their backs to a wooded area that acted as a funnel; Henry and his knights at the center with archers and men-at-arms on both wings protected by sharpened stakes driven into the ground just as Shakespeare had it. Our investigators looked up contemporary French accounts of the battle of which there were many (by medieval standards) A few very interesting facts came to light. First, the vast majority of French knights fought on foot as dismounted infantry. (Probably because the English were also on foot) In front of the French was a large company of Venetian mercenary cross-bow men. These were steel, crank-it-to-cock-it bows and lethal to armored knights. The cavalry went in first and accomplished little against the defensive stakes. After one charge, they retired behind the main formation. Now the French knights decided to wait no longer. They had been standing around all morning in their armor. It had rained, and while the sun was now out, it was probably very humid. They'd had enough. They shouldered the Venetian bow men aside before they'd unloosed the first volley. (bad mistake) and hurled themselves at Henry. Not at Henry's army as a whole, but at the exact center of the line where Henry and his household knights stood. At this point, the investigators give us a small digression: the reasons for going to war in medieval times were (apart from vassal obligations) (1) Money and (2) Reputation. If you unhorsed a knight on the field, or otherwise defeated him, your squires escorted\dragged him back to your tent and after the battle you exchanged pleasantries, fed him dinner and released him to go home and raise his own ransom, while you kept his armor. So there was money in fighting. (and plunder) Secondly, the knighthood class in Europe at that time wasn't all that big. Everybody knew everybody else (or close to it) and certainly knew who the heavy hitters were. Everyone wanted to climb that "right stuff" pyramid. As a result, the whole of French knighthood was fixated on Henry and his knights, each man hoping to do some great feat of arms. The ground was muddy and the mud had a very high clay content. It was the sort of mud where you sink to mid-calf and then the mud sucks your shoe off. In no time at all, they were packed shoulder to shoulder, each trying to jostle his way to the front. Soon people were falling down, and once down, it was impossible to get up. Others walked right over the fallen. Knights had their heads pressed down into the gooey mud and drowned in their helmets. Then the real fun started. Both wings of Henry's army closed in on the French. Each man carried one of two things (sometimes both). First was a long handled lead sledgehammer for driving tent pegs, and, of course, those big sharpened stakes. The second was a knife about 18" long used for everything from cutting up fire wood to cutting meat on the plate...and sharpening those big stakes. Archers, yeomen and men-at-arms fell on the French who were ignoring them. (second big mistake) Men with hammers shattered bone and collapsed skulls. Men with knives probbed armor for chinks and slaughtered people on the ground. These commoners did not have the option of taking knights prisoner and collecting ransom. (they'd probably be hung if they tried) So they killed everyone, and in one afternoon decimated the flower of French knighthood.

RAF_Lou, you need a small traveling kit with a joystick, a laptop with OFF and a wireless connection.

It was, until they shot the poor bloody oyster. I always liked the Hurricaine when I flew CFS1 European Theater. What it lacked in speed, you got back in tighter turning radius.

Apparently it was an attempt at streamlining. Here's what I could find on the Floh (Flea) The DFW T28 Floh (Flea) was designed by the Chief Engineer of the Deutsche Flugzeugwerke GmbH of Leipzig-Lindenthal, Dipl.Ing. Hermann Dorner. The intent was to create a high speed fighter by eliminating drag through reducing the need for struts and rigging. The name Floh translates as "Flea" in English, and this is because it looks like a small fat blob with stunted wings. The Floh was an all-wood construction biplane which had a wingspan of 6.5 meters and a fuselage length of 4.5 meters. it was powered by a 100 hp in-line Mercedes D1 engine and armed with a single machine gun installed over the engine inside the fuselage. Special emphasis was placed on streamlining that led to the aircraft's bizzare silhouette. The Floh was conceived as a strut and wire less aircraft. In this respect, the Floh was only partially successful, because when the T28 finally reached prototype stage it still needed some wing struts. However, it did not have the volume of rigging commonly seen on aircraft from its era. The prototype Floh made a very promising first flight in 1915., During the test flight a speed of 180 Km/h was recorded, this was a feat at the time. The test flight exposed difficult landing characteristics in the design. This could be attributable to a narrow width of the landing gear causing instability and the high center of gravity. These flaws were compounded by the position of the pilot which reduced landing visibility. On the very first flight the prototype had an extremely hard landing which resulted in light damage to the wing cell. It did not enter production due to a series of unresolved issues. In spite of being successful in achieving its goal of a high speed, the German military, was not in the mood to support such an unorthodox design. Because of this, the Floh is only remembered as another curiosity in military aircraft development. Seems several people have 3D modeled the Flea...even going so far as to mod CFS2 where you can fly the Flea against squadrons of Norman Bel Geddes futuristic airliners. Seeing as the Flea was to be equipped with one machine gun, this must have been a monumental task. It would seem that hundreds of Fleas would be needed just to carry enough MG ammunition up to the fight.

Not bad! Not bad at all.

Fine, but these replies are all concerned with what von Richtofen did in reality. But, I'm asking a purely hypothetical question: If, (as shown in the film) Hawker had von Richtofen dead-to-rights, and declined to shoot, would von Richtofen have immediately slipped in on Hawker's six and shot him down?

I sometimes think everything worth knowing is tucked away at the Imperial War Museum.

I'll go with 'you missed'.

I'm glad WM posted the video clip that he did because it has the fatal encounter between von Richtofen and Lanoe Hawker (and completely fictional). In the film version, Hawker has von Richtofen in his sights, but declines to shoot. He lets von Richtofen go and von Richtofen repays the courtesy by slipping in on Hawker's six, and shooting him down. My question is: if this had ever happened in real life, would von Richtofen really have done it? It's pretty cold to shoot down someone who just spared your life. My vote is "no"; he would not have. T'is true, war is war, and von Richtofen was the consummate professional, but he was also an aristocrat and a gentleman. I think he'd let Hawker off the hook.

I'm betting that you flew through the smoke and flames allright.

Here's what Wikipedia had to say about "von Richtofen and Brown"... Critical Reaction In its day and after, the film received mixed to negative reviews from both viewers and critics, mainly on the grounds that it was low budgeted and had no distinctive stars. Another factor was the fictional approach the story took on the two main characters. The fiction and facts of the film will now follow. Factual Errors The film contains so many factual errors (a selection of which are listed here) that it is effectively almost completely fictionalised: Richthofen is shown flying a Fokker D.VII before flying the Fokker Dr.I, when in fact the Dr.1 came out earlier than the D.VII. Von Richthofen died (just) before the D.VII entered service. The aircraft of the Flying Circus are shown as being painted in a uniform scheme of blue and silver - in fact they were painted in varied individual colours, with red predominating. Hermann Göring was not in the Flying Circus until he took over command some time after von Richthofen's death. Wilhelm Reinhard was Richthofen's immediate successor. Hawker died in November 1916, flying a D.H.2. Brown did not begin flying combat missions until March 1917, and in any case never belonged to the Royal Flying Corps (see next point). Thus the two never served in the same squadron, and probably never met. Brown's squadron had just ceased to be part of the Royal Naval Air Service, which had just amalgamated with the Royal Flying Corps to form the Royal Air Force in April 1918. He and his squadron mates would still have been wearing naval uniforms. Roy Brown and his squadron flew Sopwith Camels, not S.E.5s, as depicted in the film. Brown almost certainly did not actually shoot Richthofen down. Lothar von Richthofen did not join Jasta 11 until 1917. Anthony Fokker and Oswald Boelcke were both still in their twenties at the time - not balding men in their 40's. Boelcke never served in the Flying Circus, which was formed after his death, although he was Richthofen's commanding officer in another unit (Jasta 2) in 1916. Ernst Udet did not join the flying circus until 1918. The portrayal of the death of Werner Voss had little relationship with the facts. He was shot down and killed in northern Belgium, some time before Richthofen's death. Lt May did not enter the RAF 209 squadron until 1918 - in fact he was still an almost complete novice at the time of Richthofen's death. During a scene where the Red Baron is rescued in No Man's Land, the Germans are shown firing World War II era (Mk.IV) Lee Enfield Rifles. In any case, German fighter squadrons as a matter of policy flew well behind their own lines. The only time Richthofen was shot down before his death was on his own side of the lines. On the day of his death he was probably lost, and did not realise he was so close to the Allied lines. Attacks on the opposition's airfields (by both sides) were relatively routine and in no way "unexpected" - counter measures such as alarm bells, anti-aircraft machine guns in permament positions, fire fighting equipment, and above all military preparedness were also routine. Such attacks were normally undertaken by bombers rather than fighters, even by the Allies. German fighters, in particular, simply did not undertake bombing missions, nor were they employed on the Allied side of the lines. Base hospitals were not located at military airfields (this in itself would have been a breach of the Geneva Convention).

Nice mod, but the gunner on the cannon has the tamper (right term?) half in the barrel and half out.

How did you miss this one WM? And you might be glad you did. This is the one where Lynn Garrison bought all the planes from "The Blue Max" and leased them to Roger Corman (the 'King of the B-Movies') It's on a par with "Flyboys".

Thanks Olham for the tip. The Sidewinder is still pretty good, but the Thrustmaster takes home the marbles. Lots of rudder to bring the guns to bear.

...and I will buy two copies!

I have FRAPS, but the good moments blow by too fast to hit the right key.

Close, but you missed him.

Is there a re-play function in OFF?

Uummm...1066, and all that.

FIRE IN THE SKY! FIRE IN THE SKY!! Still the best from Olham and Shiloh!

So it looks like the model and plans exist somewhere. http://www.modelflight.regheath.com/earlybirds/1909frameset.htm

Yes, you did say 'monoplane, didn't you? I saw "Howard-Wright...' and got carried away. Here's another cut at it. ...and this from the MIKE ROACH website: http://www.sopwithmike.org.uk/html/other_wwi_photos_1.html