Jump to content

US93_Larner

Members
  • Content Count

    991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by US93_Larner

  1. Yep - Buckingham. I think it could be a court martial offence, but I don't know if it ever resulted in execution. They certainly didn't execute Albert Ball when he used it against aircraft - although he did get a chewing out from his C.O. I think Mannock used to use it as well. I found a few quotes about Buckingham the other day, but I can't remember where for the life of me... edit: Actually IIRC it might have been that one of Mannock's wingmen used it...and Mannock strongly urged them not to... ...Arthur Brooks (USAS) also used incendiary ammunition in his 'big fight' vs 8 Fokkers...bringing two down in flames within two bursts IIRC
  2. 1) Yes, it's the second most common cause - but it's still only 24% . If you look at it another way - say, structural failure vs "meat and metal", that gives us 76% for hitting 'critical' components. Rounding to the nearest 5, just to make it a tiny bit neater, that would make 25% and 75% - in other words, 1 in every 4 aircraft would be likely to break up, from a purely mathematical standpoint and not factoring in the scoring pilot's marksmanship prowess. What would be interesting, then, would be to compare the figures for how many aircraft MvR shot at and missed the critical components vs how many went down in pieces. Although, I imagine that would be far harder to ascertain accurately. 2) This has to be considered as well, and is a good point. I was wondering how easy or difficult it would be to ascertain the victories of a more 'average' pilot. I have considered giving this ago, and I think I'd go with Arthur Gould Lee as the 'test subject'. He seems to have a generally honest recounting of his exploits in the air. Coincidentally, IIRC, he also makes mention of an encounter with MvR's all-red Fokker Triplane (which he let get to within shooting range, thinking it was a Tripehound!!). That might be a rather interesting source on MvR's gunnery. 3) I compared my pre-DM kills starting from May 6 to my post-DM kills by analysing the parsers. Unfortunately it's very hard to spot an aircraft down in flames via parser, but you can get a good idea of what happened once you start noticing the 'patterns' in the numbers. That being said... 1. I'd say so. I very, very rarely used to see aircraft breaking up. Almost never. 2. Yes - way too far. Nearly all of my kills since the update have been wing-rips. 3. I'm not so sure about that - if the new spars land us in the middle of the old and the new DMs, then 4. I definitely think it needs to go back. During BA I was flying a Bristol VS. 3 Albatros. I must have heard the wound SFX at least 10 times. Eventually I crashed after wings came off at low level...and I survived.
  3. Absolutely fantastic work. This post is a credit to the community. Thanks for taking the time! Don't know how I missed this until now. With the current DM in effect, it's very interesting to see a meagre 24% of victories being due to structural break-up. Provided that's correct (and I don't see why it wouldn't be - MvR was keen-eyed, if that figure is off then it'll likely only be by a small margin) then that just doesn't add up to the current DM.
  4. Doing some more dive testing in FC today, I was able to achieve a new 'personal best' in recovering a SPAD with all its surfaces from a power-dive, with the eventual figure being 370 360 km/h* (or just over). However, the aircraft had long surpassed flutter speed and I needed to use a highly unorthodox method of pulling out of the dive in order to save myself. In other words, I'd consider that speed the absolute maximum of the SPAD's ability. *Watching the footage back again, I got it wrong. The actual max dive I achieved was 361 km/h. At the moment, 350 km/h is what I'd consider a "Dangerous" speed for a SPAD XIII in FC, with between 355 - 370 km/h being the speeds where you will rapidly start to lose control surfaces. At this point, I don't believe the dive is conventionally recoverable. While "Suicide Diving" (I.E, diving with no intention of pulling out, in order to gauge the absolute top speed the aircraft can handle) I've discovered that the wings will collapse without any added G loading at around 390 km/h. As an interesting side-note, this was seemingly trumped by the S.E.5a, which I managed to recover at 370 km/h conventionally and with no additional control / engine damage. EDIT 2: Seems this was a one-off. Not since been able to recover past 160 km/h. I want to do some more in-game testing to first determine a "conventionally recoverable" dive speed for the SPAD XIII, which can then be cross-referenced with any sources that emerge claiming a higher (or equal, or lower) historical top dive speed. In regards to historical sources: The SPAD's airspeed indicator won't go past 300 km/h, meaning that pilot accounts citing speeds higher than this have to be approximations, and so must be taken with a pinch of salt. This ties in with testing, so the kind of sources that I would consider valuable would have to be either from highly experienced pilots (which would still be dubious at predicting accurate speeds, but may hint at a 'general' figure, depending on speeds cited, and by how many pilots cite a speed in the same ball park - a lot of 'ifs' involved here), sources with a reputable mathematical / theoretical basis, or evidence that provides reasonable proof to back up its accuracy. EDIT 3: XIII dive speeds after thorough testing: 350 km/h - Recoverable with no damage. 360 km/h - Recoverable with probable control surface loss. Must use unconventional recovery. 370 km/h - Unrecoverable completely. Interesting when compared with figures in 'Defeat by Design' and Memorial Flight figures (they haven't got back yet, btw). 370 km/h is drastically slower than both sources.
  5. Wow. And what kind of altitudes could it dive? Would it kill its own engine within 500m, 1000m, 1500, etc? This might be of some use to the technically-minded guys..a Wolseley Viper acceptance certificate dated 23-11-18
  6. I should be flexible enough. On GMT, technically, but I'm a bit of a vampire.
  7. So, never having experienced the "Glass Cannnon" S.E...would it kill its engine in a 0% throttle dive?
  8. I don't think I'm technically-minded enough to contribute any meaningful answer...but an interesting topic nonetheless! It is quite curious to think about the way some engines tend to break in FC, vs. pilot accounts of "Diving with the engine full on", etc, etc. So far, the most durable engine in a dive in FC (as far as I see) is the geared HS 8Ba, like you point out, which can do a max of (IIRC) 86% throttle without failing at any attainable speed by the aircraft it powers. The big contrast is the D.IIIa engine, which smashes itself even at 0% throttle if you dive for too long! Interested to see where this thread goes...!
  9. "No sugar for me, thanks. I'm sweet enough!" ๐Ÿ˜„
  10. The terror of RoF. Is he in FC yet?
  11. I think in this case, the extraordinary part is the getting out of the dive with shot-up controls! Here's something unrelated entirely, but I don't want to start another thread about the SPAD...I was flicking through Gorrell's history of the AEF the other day (which is essentially a huge archive of USAS reports, memoranda, A.A.Rs, etc, all from the war) and I found a reference in a postwar report on the development of a new Scout type that seems to suggest that the in-game SPAD should NOT be able to equip two Balloon Guns...instead, it should only be able to equip a right-side balloon gun, coupled with a left-side 7mm Vickers:
  12. The plot thickens.....and we're not supposed to talk about that image
  13. You'd be surprised! I can't speak for others, but in the 103rd in RoF we used to do our Thursday V-Life mini game (which we still do). At the time, JG1 was doing something very similar, with their guys participating in Hotlead's "One Life to Live" live streams - which also took place on Thursday. At one point they had a similar setup to ours - a V-Life scoreboard that tracked pilots sorties flown and victories on Thursday. Once you died, the scoreboard was wiped. What that led to was two v-Squadrons playing in a "Life First" play style - and we actually ended up having many , many engagements that are much more in line with some of the historical stuff you might have read! Typically our patrol would spot theirs and start to set up a bounce - or vice-versa - and what would then follow was a long period of manoeuvring against each other, followed by a lightning-flash engagement in which, more often than not, nobody actually got shot down! But, both we and JG1 (as I learned by watching Lead's streams) would count forcing the other flight to retreat as a "Success"! Honestly, those flights / fights were the most fun I've ever had in RoF or FC.
  14. Another interesting quote citing aircraft performing g-intensive manoeuvres with battle damage (From John Guttman's "Spad XIII vs Fokker D.VII)":
  15. Another interesting anecdote: "Shelby fired at close range and followed it down as the fighter dived, streaming white vapour, unril his guns jammed: Although he crashed inside our lines, I didn't actually see it because I was so busy trying to apply immediate action to my guns. The first indication that I was in trouble came when my instrument panel exploded in my face. I didn't know where the shot had come from, so I twisted around to look over my shoulder, and my heart caught in my throat. There, a dozen yards behind me and square on my tail, was one of the Fokkers with the muzzles of both guns flickering. When you are in trouble in a SPAD, you dive, so I dived. In spite of shot-up controls, Shelby managed to pull out of his 200mph dive just above the Meuse River, his propeller kicking up spray as he did so. Barely clearing the riverbank, he flew past Verdun and sporred a small field. 'I fishtailed straight in and made a pretty good landing', he concluded. 'The aeroplane was shot up but otherwise in pretty good shape.'" From John Guttman's "SPAD XIII vs Fokker D.VII". 200mph would roughly equate to 320 km/h - significantly lower than the other references and the in-game SPAD...the plot thickens...
  16. Congrats to Gamecock, well done! (Shouted from behind my friendly lines)
  17. Hahahah that bit gets me every time!
  18. In my last response to Gamecock I mentioned two Jasta 6 pilot quotes about the SPAD dive VS. the D.VII F - as it so happens, one of those quotes actually covers this as well! "The scene was always the same. A tight turn and then the SPAD pilots were overtaken, but they saved themselves by going into a vertical nosedive. Naturally, we couldn't follow them, so we forced an entire SPAD flight of seven aircraft down in turn". -Ltn. Richard Wenzl, Jasta 6. To me, that quote implies that the SPADs were 'mixing it up' with the Fokker's and then diving like hell once they got one on their tail! Lol....I wonder who's responsible... @Adam knows, perhaps?
  19. Biddle's book actually offers some really terrific insights into the SPAD as a fighting machine. I've only 'skimmed' it so far (only having an eBook copy on hand...I find it hard to sit down and read a screen for hours!) but from the snippets I've read it comes very highly recommended by myself. Biddle also mentioned at one point in the memoir that one of his wingmen had fallen into a 'bait trap', and ended up with two Huns close on his tail. He then wrote in some detail about how hard it is to get away in this situation. I found it fascinating, as it lines up really closely to some of my FC experiences - namely, if the Fokker catches you, you're in for a hell of a fight, and you're forced to beat them away before you can dive out. "If/when" being the main important thing here - I agree 100% that we (I?) shouldn't push for any changes until there is some good evidence that the SPAD is underperforming in a dive. At the moment we have some pretty promising anecdotal evidence, and a couple figures that seem to have a decent theoretical basis - but nothing that would make me go "THAT'S It! Now, let's change the FM!" However - I will slightly disagree about the SPAD being better in a dive. It is certainly faster, in the sense that it reaches a higher top speed, but it will be out-accelerated by the D.VII F* in a dive all the way up until the D.VII F's crucial speed. This wasn't the case in RoF, where the D.VII F accelerated slower in a dive compared to its FC counterpart (not sure what prompted the change?). To me, that seems implausible, especially considering that there were two pilots of Jasta 6 who were quoted as mentioning they couldn't catch SPADs in a dive (I can find the quotes if you'd like - I find them quite valuable as one pilot specifically compares the 200hp SPAD XIII to the BMW-Powered Fokker D.VII F!) . That is definitely more of an issue in my mind than the SPAD's current top dive speed. However, I've not yet started that thread, as, being an Entente pilot, I tend to walk on eggshells when mentioning the D.VII F. Doing so usually comes with quite a lot of backlash... *And the vanilla D.VII IIRC, but I'd want to check that again before stating it as fact Yes! Let's get those malfunctions in there! And let's also put in the D.VII F's historical tendency to spontaneously burst into flames by cooking off its own ammo due to overheating issues! ๐Ÿ˜‰
  20. Appreciated - and I am fighting desperately against the urge to jump to conclusions ๐Ÿ˜„ - my line of thinking with the Rocard figures at the moment is - assuming that it has some degree of credibility - the given figure is so drastically higher than the in-game FC version that it makes me wonder if there aren't some more accurate sources relating to the SPAD's top speed...the repeated mention of 450 km/h gives me hope, but I'm holding out for some more solid evidence. If Rocard's theoretical numbers are in line with other sources, then perfect! I've reached out to the French Memorial Flight guys to see what sources they have for the 450 km/h figure...fingers crossed...
  21. Let's try to keep the thread from devolving into a petty squabble, eh? On the topic of what kind of damage aircraft could sustain in the Great War, here's another interesting quote from Charles Biddle of the 13th Aero Squadron USAS. It's not specifically Spar related, but interesting nonetheless: While talking about the same fight, Biddle mentions that after taking these hits he manoeuvres vs his opponents for about a minute, before performing a 'Renversement' (or a Split-S, as we would call it) and going into a dive - before performing a second Renversement to face his lines and diving for home. For reference, he was flying a SPAD VII in this fight. I found that particularly interesting as we all seem to agree that a large part of the current DM's shortcomings lies in vertical manoeuvring. The full quote is here, in the spoiler:
  22. Okay - I think it's a bit of a moot point to do so, but I'll do my best...bear with me. I will preface this by saying again that I don't think the D.VII F should have any ahistorical limitations placed on it to appease anyone's sense of how the gameplay feels. Referring to this post as a contextual basis: For argument's sake, let's say that the 450 km/h figure as stated in the sources is exactly correct. If that is the case: A SPAD that can only dive up to 390 km/h is only diving at 86.7% of its historical capacity. The only reason that you would have to limit the SPAD to 390 km/h (360 km/h if you're talking purely about diving to the aircraft's apex without causing damage) would be to make the gameplay more 'balanced' by putting an ahistorical limitation on the SPAD's diving ability. The Fokker D.VII F's absolute biggest strength is its climb rate, and nothing comes close to matching its service ceiling. In those two particular fields it is totally peerless - much like a SPAD that is able to dive at its historical 450 km/h would be. So, given that we've limited the SPAD's unmatched dive ability in order to make the gameplay slightly more balanced, it would stand to reason that the D.VII F's unmatched climb ability and ceiling should be limited too. In that case, let's limit the D.VII F's climb rate and max altitude to 86.7% of its historical ability so that it's not as imbalanced gameplay-wise. And, if we're doing that to the SPAD and the D.VII F, we'd better cut the Camel's top speed down to 86.7%, to be closer to the Dr.I's top speed, and cut the S.E's top dive speed to 86.7% so that it's not so overpowered vs. Albatri, etc etc etc...all to make the game more balanced. As you can see, just about everything that I've just written in the above paragraph is complete and utter stupid nonsense. Nothing should be stripped of its historical ability with "gameplay" as the sole reason! Therefore, I don't see any reason to intentionally leave the SPAD with a lower dive speed than it could historically produce! I hope I've illustrated that point clearly, moot as it may be... But, anyway. That's all starting to veer a little off topic, and doesn't really have anything to do with determining the SPAD's historical top dive speed. All I'm interested in now is finding out what the SPAD's historical top dive speed was and comparing to the FC SPAD. So far, the sources seem to indicate that it's somewhere around 450 km/h, which would make the FC version too slow. That's my main focus with this thread!
  23. No, it doesn't appear to have done so. While doing some dive tests today the RoF / FC SPADs reacted in almost exactly the same way to an extreme power-dive up to around 375 / 380 km/h (namely - bye-bye controls). The only change perceivable is the severity of the visual shaking - in RoF it's concerning, in FC it's downright scary! Very cool. Thanks for sharing - and really interesting, Guynemer talking about the 150 VII being too slow to fight the Halberstadt Scout? As for the maximum speed figure - how should I know? I wasn't there. Joking aside and in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a test pilot dived the machine to its apex. There were plenty of absolutely mad bastards back then...to even be a test pilot in the era of wood and wire is insane enough! I think the Charles Biddle quote is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the SPAD could be dived beyond what would be considered 'safe' or even what was 'possible' (in the sense that, from the damage report, that pilot was lucky not to turn himself into a crater!). But, of course, the operative word there is 'anecdotal'. I'd have to think that, providing that the 450 km/h figure refers to a speed in which the SPAD could exit a dive intact**, wing deformation and fabric tearing not being modelled shouldn't be a problem, as it wouldn't have occurred at least up to that speed. The soft-body physics are another matter - and the article in the OP goes into some really interesting detail about it - specifically in reference to the SPAD XIII, which is helpful! I think for all aircraft, the lack of soft-body physics should be somehow counteracted to give aircraft their historical durability (or lack thereof where appropriate) - but I imagine that would be a huge task for the devs. **I might not word my thoughts too well here, but - I would think a speed which tears off control surfaces, fabric, warps wings - in other words, a speed which significantly damages the aircraft - would NOT be cited as being within its top diving speed in the context of "this plane could dive up to X speed", unless the topic was more specifically in line with aircraft overspeed and damage in power-dives. (I hope I've worded that clearly enough!) Ah, the question of gameplay. Tricky as always. Personally, I think that if the SPAD could dive up to speeds of 450 km/h in reality, then why not in FC? I agree that it's better than the competition (apart from the S.E, if you'd count that as competition) - but, within the current gameplay you also have the D.VII F, which climbs and generates energy disproportionately well to its opposition, as well as having a ceiling far above anything else in FC. Should that be limited for gameplay purposes too? My answer would be no - but, if that's the case, you can't then also cut the SPAD's diving ability short for gameplay-related reasons. Does that sound fair? (I promise I'm not D.VII F bashing - it just serves as a good example!) On a semi-related side note, I also think that the Pfalz needs a significant dive speed update. Last November I did some thorough testing of all the FC aircraft's dive capabilities, and I found that the FC Pfalz, in a completely vertical dive, couldn't get past 265 km/h (how the hell did you get it to 290?? I guess I'll have to redo my tests!). Today I dove an Albatros to 299 km/h. That doesn't add up with the Pfalz' historical reputation of being one of the most renowned German divers. I'd also be happy to back any suggestion of aircraft (such as the D.Va) flying with missing lower wings if they historically could (which von Hippel reluctantly proved they could).
  24. He never mentioned anything about the SPAD losing its control surfaces. The full quote: "I saw the Huns coming down on my companion and followed him as fast as I could but they attacked him before I could even get within long range of them. Luckily for him however they began shooting too far away, put a couple of bullets through his wings and warned him. He promptly stood on his nose and dove vertically for six thousand feet with his motor at extreme high speed. I never saw a machine go down so fast before and it is a wonder he did not pull his wings off. I think he would have in anything but a Spad. As it was, he stretched all the bracing wires between his wings out of tension and bent the wings themselves back an inch or two so that the whole plane had to be taken apart and re-regulated before he could fly it again". (The Way of the Eagle, p47) Having a look through (weird website design btw!), the Memorial Flight cites: "(the SPAD XIII) could withstand the stress of dives above 280 MPH followed by steep climbs", which backs up the predicted number given in the OP. You would also have to assume that the Memorial Flight means that the SPAD would survive intact in a dive above 280 MPH (450 km/h). The FC SPAD XIII fares much worse in a dive, starting to shake violently at around 350 km/h and losing its control surfaces at 370 km/h. At 390 km/h the wings fail. So, by comparison, the Flying Circus SPAD breaks up in the air at a speed at least 60 km/h slower than, apparently, a fully recoverable dive - according to the Memorial Flight and Rocard's prediction method.
  25. I remember Albs being able to fly on 3 or 2 wings in RoF. They could dive a little bit as well - but not at 'losing your lower wings' speed. Although I seem to remember them being able to fly with lost upper wings. IIRC the Fokker and Pfalzes could fly like that as well. I never managed to fly an S.E. or SPAD with any missing wings. I don't remember the N11 or N17 being able to - but I never flew them an awful lot. In FC it seems like only the Dr.I can fly with missing wings. I did some more dive testing in FC today for the SPAD - and I stand corrected. The wings will collapse at around 390 km/h - but by the time you're going that fast you will have lost all your control surfaces, which come off one-by-one in rapid fashion around 360- 370 km/h. That's closer to the 'Rocard' figure given when factoring in the -15% error margin of the top crucial speed, but is still 20 km/h slower. Compared to the unmodified predicted figure, it's a full 93 km/h slower (that's still quite a big difference) and when applying the +15% error margin it's not even close, with a whopping 165 km/h difference. The fastest I managed to dive an Albatros D.Va was 299 km/h. The plane simply couldn't get any faster than that - but it held together minus its ailerons. Compared with Rocard's prediction +15% error margin, that's a minimum 82 km/h advantage to the FC Albatros, with the critical speed unknown.
×
×
  • Create New...