Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1757 Excellent

About ZachariasX

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1826 profile views
  1. How would people that barely could hit anything shooting forward (where they have a gunsight for aim) ever hit anything shooting up in the blue, hosing the other guy with the tracers? Works great on the screen though. We can do a ton of things easily in the sim that is rather far fetched in real life. Like positioning the gun with a click. If they had learned to shoot (trained hundreds of times like we can) with an added upward arrangement, they surely would have liked some aspects of it. It gives you the alpha the plane can‘t give you. In sim as in real life. It would be debatable tough wheter or not in the sim there could be control restirictions for certain actions, e.g. pulling the gun down restricts control column movement. Same as changing mags. You move your stick, mag change woukd be interrupted. Then jams could be added to the misfires. Clearing the gun also would restrict control movements. Things like that could well make funny guns less practical. We have such limitations now like max trim wheel rotation and restriction due to g-force. Such could be applied to systems and weapons handling in FC planes.
  2. Doing so without the amtliche Gewicht? How un-German! 😄
  3. I guess many weapons are used in game in a way that would not be suitable in reality back then. This mostly due to pilots happily entering situations that would be avoided. The foster mount existed and was in widespread use and it was designed such for precisely the way it is frowned about in the sim, namely allwoing to shoot upwards. We are using it differently here, especially due to the fact that the game allows for reloading the gun during maneuvering. A weapon is no good if you can't make use of it. We can use the tilt guns much better the way they are implemented here, same as it is FAR easier to manage your engine etc. many things are FAR easier in the game than in reality back then. Of course, the twin synchronized gun are more suitable for fighter combat in 1918. Yet, there is also much later good use for schräge Musik, an increadible successful arrangement for its purpose. In the game, we just have an environment that makes schräge Musik a great solution against fighters, which I doubt would be the case in real life, as you cannot conveniently aim in such a real aircraft as you can in the game. In the beginning, Garros shot downward (and to the side), then (literally) throgh the propeller. After that came the "pop - pop device" in the Pup, where in contrast a fast firing Lewis mounted on the top wing has considerable charm, despite idiotic an reloading and clearing procedure. Later on, the Lewis gin up there became certainly inferior in general use to the Vickers or the Spandaus. The you remove it: There was purpose for that arrangement and it was removed when there was obviously no more purpose for it due to change in the airwar and new technology becoming available. In the game, we are certainly not behaving like we would up there semi suffocated in the cold with just one frag to give. Besides, even the Vickers gun in the real SE5a has an upward tilt (that it shares with the foster monted Lewis). Just less so. One of several aircraft that have the guns pointed slightly upward. Yes, I know what you mean. But if you care thinking it through, it's just not that simple. Having guns pointed upwards to some degree, depending on purpose was and always is effective and we see it in most aircraft (some point gind downward, like the A-10). It is effective having guns like that, the catch is can you make use from it. On an SE5a in 1918, probably hardly anyone could make use of it. But we can. Here we can. Yes. Bad. But as said, not the only aspect where the game is permissive for alternate use.
  4. It was effective and it was reflected in aircraft development. The way it was mounted specifically adressed its use as an oblique weapon. The only downside it had, you had to sneak under your oponent somewhat unnoticed in order to have a good aim at him. This precludes the use as such in a high speed dogfight like in late war scenarios that had a lot of planes involved. There speed mattered more than anything. The oblique use of the gun was for the Entente what the Triplane was for Central. A specialist weapon. As such, it was useful. But not in the hands of John Doe or Hein Blöd. Discounting the flexible mount of the foster mounting is like discounting the Triplane. EDIT: What one clearly sees is the changing nature of dogfight and shows a lot of whisdom from the hindsight. The top wing arrangement allowed a much higher firing rate. hence, in a surprise bounce, it is a better weapon. But once one is discovered this advantage is nullified, especially at the cost of not being able to reload the gun during maneuvering. A comment from 1968 certainly doesn't see things as Ball et. al. would have looked at it in early 1917.
  5. Well, if you ever found the nerve to do it anyway, I‘d be happy to listen. His account is very special but for continental folks of today like me not easy to grasp besides factual occurrences. And as you say, what we do have of that is what he witnessed though his own eyes and ears. Some of his antics are funny as I do know some English folks well enough that I can relate some of his jokes (like with him knowing what kind of jam is required for Trenchard etc.) but I doubt I get most of those details. He‘s lacking aunt Violet to make things obvious.
  6. I think Trupo makes a very important point here. Most avaitior accounts tell more about the both the autor as well as about the target audience than they tell you hard facts about aircraft. And the latter is a particularly difficult one to grasp, as cultural differences might make the reader not get the message between the lines. Also the people in question probably though in a way less pedantic way about their rides and what they did with them, hence certain precision in details is simply not required for their story. Someone with a lesser ride but better tactics can rightfully say he feels having a cmpetitive aircraft over an inept oponent with a higher performing aircraft and vice versa. While wrong on the specs, it can still be the truth. Unless a "fight test quality" report is generated, everything is subject to discussion. I think for our case here, It would be much more important to get exact plane configurations to make meaningful performance projections. If you have those, you can make rather exact performance projections. It's done everyday. You don't make a new aircraft without having a clear idea on how it will perform. Yes, it's rocket science, but certainly not magic.
  7. This, yes. CS 25 very, very far from anyone keeping his oldtimer in shape. This is probably when we have to find some middle ground to make it both possible keeping the old birds in shape as well as adopting better discipline. In case of the Ju-Air, I‘m quiet certain that when being operational again, ops won‘t be the anything like it was before. Also, I doubt they would be a normal airline (as it was until now) anymore, but have significant restrictions.
  8. I certainly believe you. However you can (if you really want) do a surprising lot. It's just that airplane builders are by no means up to standard for different reasons. It's just manual labor. It is stone age compared for instance to car production. Also documentation requirements in the aircrtaft building industry are a joke compared to what you could impose in terms of regulation as seen for instance in Pharma.
  9. I think that report is really in support of the 190, as its downsides are what you'd expect with an early series aircraft. The bottom line is still impressive and a huge step up from the 109. As @Bremspropeller says, it really didn't take that long to make a rather reliable plane out of what what they had at hands with the A2. The only thing that could be a serious concern is the climb rate. In the field however, the 190 enjoyed a huge advantage in zoom climbing over the Spitfire MkV and was very well capable of maintaining the initiative. The 190 being as different from the 109 as the Tempest is from the Spitfire, controversy is expected as well as it is entertaining. It's just that the Fw-190 pilots couldn't let the 109 drivers know that "we land at the speed you are cruising", so this controversy can be carried out longer.
  10. That "Abschrift", ist that a report from "Hptm. G o l l o b". Is that Gordon Gollob?
  11. To me it sounds that on the ramp, the engine is barely able to make 1700 rpm. But as soon as you have airspeed, rpm goes up to at least 2000 rpm. This means any climb you do in an SE5a should give you easily 1800 rpm, even steep climbs, but my guess is more like 1900. If we don't get that in game, then propeller torque is off. But is seems that I have to correct myself regarding overrev damage: (I quote from your link) "...However, engine rpm must be constantly monitored as an over speed cannot be supported – sever engine damage would result ..."
  12. Depends. You can enforce it. It has been done in several fields, drug production and medtech for instance. It was GxP guidelines were drafted after the industry was caught cheating and people died. Yes, there were tears. But they got used to it. The only thing that happened over time is that this system now is also used to create its own new industry and the unnecessary overhead is tolerable as it serves as entry bar for new competition. Same happened to the banking industry after they were caught cheating and everyone but them lost money. They do live the new regime, especially since it doesn‘t serve its original purpose but acts as entry bar and is great for blame shifting. Also, ops is led by the head of the company, not by the guidelines. Guidelines are just used to ensure verifiability. Now, you just have someone in charge signing off on things and all is well. But it says nothing about how work is done. Hence my comment about the „clean floor“. A signature don‘t mean squat. You should be able to prove the origin of any part and know how long it is supposed to last. At any time. With proper ops, you can know these things. But it takes some hurt for old hares to adjust to such. But done right, everyone is happy, as everything that is ever asked from a worker is easy to do, as it has a documented way of doing it. And the floor stays clean.
  13. There is indeed something odd in general that prop rpm drop that much in a climb. Has anyone real life experience with something like that happening? Ground revs are maybe OTOH 10% lower, but in flight, I can‘t recall any rpm drop to speak of when just climbing. I think propeller modelling is somewhat off in general, at least for fixed pitch ones. Also, in the video link posted above (Se5 pilot interview), the aircraft was described as remarkably solid. Not really what we have, although it is not like in RoF anymore. What the pilot does say is the huge increase in drag when flying at high AoA (landing), in this sense I think the FM in FC is reasonable. A problem I see more in the FM not being really precise in resulting AoA vs trim/airspeed. I‘m referring to the numerous flaps related discussions we have here. Hence I‘m nor sure if it would work by giving the Se5 the old FM parameters. I assume we‘d still have a different result.
  • Create New...