Jump to content
FokkerFodder

Sir Peter Jackson - partnership?

Recommended Posts

This might sound a bit mad (and possibly against forum rules) but looking at the huge investment Sir Peter has made in his foundation and collection of real birds etc, whether he would be interested in supporting the top WW1 VR ready sim under development?

 

He even has access to real flyable birds and pilots who could help refine the sim( and monetary resources) and I bet there’s someone from the FC or RoF community in New Zealand who has some contact with his foundation. As a technologist I’m sure he’d see the value of sims like FC is helping we generations to better understand his passion.

 

Just a thought!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why WW1?  Last I heard he was working on a re-make of Dambusters.   I did not know he owned aircraft. Are they mostly WW1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Why WW1?  Last I heard he was working on a re-make of Dambusters.   I did not know he owned aircraft. Are they mostly WW1?

 

Because this is the WW1 thread :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Why WW1?  Last I heard he was working on a re-make of Dambusters.   I did not know he owned aircraft. Are they mostly WW1?

 

Peter Jackson is crazy about WW1 - and yes, he has hangars full of WW1 ships! His company, the vintage aviator ltd, builds replica WW1 planes (about as true-to-life as you can get). They also reproduce old WW1 plane engines. 

 

There's an incredible clip on youtube where he kitted out one of his Dr.Is and R.E.8s with laser-tag guns and had them dogfight! 

Edited by US103_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Jackson also owns Wingnut Wings. They produce 1/32 scale WW1aircraft model kits, some of the nicest kits available. www.wingnutwings.com/ww/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of asking Vintage Aviator about actual performance of their planes is as old as FM discussions in RoF. IIRC there were attempts to contact them, they never reply.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Jackson?   interested in WW1?  Um, yeah!

 

The segment at the end of this film about the making of the film gets into his collection and how it was used to recreate authentic sounds to put to the silent film to bring it alive.  Saw this film in large theatre with a group of amateur and professional military historians....amazing and highly recommend the film, "They shall not grow old".

 

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7905466/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wonder who it was that was contacted before. If it was a certain Mr Demarco, a new attempt might be warranted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge, Plank is Peter Jackson. The Hobbit sucks almost as much as the Plank turn.

9 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The idea of asking Vintage Aviator about actual performance of their planes is as old as FM discussions in RoF. IIRC there were attempts to contact them, they never reply.

 

While it would certainly be helpful for 1C/777 to have their opinion (provided they want it in the first place), I don't see how the Vintage Aviator would want to be associated with a commercial product over which they don't have any rights or control. These are two companies out to make a profit in a very different business.

 

But by all means, someone could buy a plane from VA, test fly it and then see if the devs will use the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He build The Sopwith Snipe for Kermit Weeks , make copy of the bentley engine from one original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The idea of asking Vintage Aviator about actual performance of their planes is as old as FM discussions in RoF. IIRC there were attempts to contact them, they never reply.

 

 Probably because they don't have the information we would want, and have no incentive to go to the trouble and expense of determining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

Probably because they don't have the information we would want, and have no incentive to go to the trouble and expense of determining it.

 

 I don't think so. What happen is that today we have GPS, back then there were no such things. They don't want to get into a war of data if some of the legendary aircraft come out way off from historic numbers. So they just build the planes, fly them in fairs and stuff, sell engines and this and that and everyone gets happy. If I recall correctly, I wrote to Mikael Carlson and he was very polite and informative regarding looping the Dr1, but he said that he does not fly with any speed indictor. I sincerely doubt that he never measured it. I also don’t recall Kermit Weeks mentioning any speed on the machines he fly. In general they mention numbers on their websites that we find at Wikipedia or The Aerodrome, I think including Wingnut Wings.

 

There might be a reason for that.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 I don't think so. What happen is that today we have GPS, back then there were no such things.

 

We are interested only in airspeed, which on it's own GPS can't measure .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

We are interested only in airspeed, which on it's own GPS can't measure .

 

The Tripehound of Vintage Aviator has a pitot tube, but I think they use historic data (117 mph at 5,000 ft). If someone could confirm with them that it comes from the pitot tube, it could solve a lot of doubts regarding these rotary engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

If someone could confirm with them that it comes from the pitot tube, it could solve a lot of doubts regarding these rotary engines.

 

Only if it was converted to true airspeed (TAS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea, I'll mention it to him next week over dinner...

 

 

 

Ohhh I wish!

 

Here's an interesting clip:

S!

Edited by Stumble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

Only if it was converted to true airspeed (TAS).

 

I doubt that it would read 188km/h at 1.5km with IAS, since rotaries perform better at lower altitudes. So I'm gessing it is TAS. They should know that too.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

We are interested only in airspeed, which on it's own GPS can't measure .

 

GPS gives you Ground Speed, from which it is possible to derive True Airspeed if you know what the winds aloft are, which should be provided by the relevant meteorological office.

 

From TAS you can derive Calibrated Airspeed (Equivalent Airspeed at higher altitudes and Mach numbers) if you know what your density altitude is (pressure altitude corrected for temperature). Again, we have all this meteorological data available to the public, in-flight if necessary. I often say that my iPad with GPS and 3G is the most precisely calibrated instrument on board. That's where it gets a little complicated, because in order to get Indicated Airspeed from CAS/EAS you need to introduce positional and instrument error rather than correct for it, which is impossible, although it should be negligible at sea level. So in the end the only problem with GPS is that it may be too precise compared to historical measurements done at altitude, which is no joke considering we're talking about making corrections along the lines of 5km/h.

 

 

8 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I doubt that it would read 188km/h at 1.5km with IAS, since rotaries perform better at lower altitudes. So I'm gessing it is TAS. They should know that too.

 

Rotaries perform very well at all altitudes, really. At sea level they have excellent power-to-weight ratio and at altitude they have good compression ratios compared to non-"overcompressed" in-line engines. The technology obviously has physical limitations, but on the whole the rotary was the superior engine for most of the war.

 

On the German machines in Flying Circus, the anemometer displays something very close to TAS, which is incidentally also IAS/CAS at sea level in standard atmospheric conditions (Kuban Autumn in the QMB is close enough).

 

At altitude, IAS and TAS begin to diverge significantly. For instance, on the Fokker Dr.I, IAS at 4000m is listed as 136km/h, which corresponds to a TAS of around 165km/h (https://aerotoolbox.net/airspeed-conversions/), which in turn matches the data collected by Gray & Thetford (1962):

 

2OKV7QG.jpg

 

AUdCuSI.jpg

 

 

With a quick measurement done in-game I never quite reach 136km/h IAS, 165km/h TAS (I'm sure somebody with more patience could still squeeze out another 1 or 2km/h):

 

iUFZYl7.jpg

 

 

 

I also don't reach 169km/h at sea level, though it's quite clear that the anemometer indeed displays TAS (which is also IAS under those conditions):

 

Dd5jp0L.jpg

 

 

 

To return to the topic at hand, if somebody from the community (whose name I shall not mention) asks the devs if he can provide them with anecdotal measurements collected from his replica which was built to closely match the original, then that is certainly something the devs should consider putting into the game. If you go and ask for that same data to Vintage Aviator, they will likely point you to whatever reference they used to build their planes, and if their production model measurements don't match the historical data, they will chalk it up to changes in the manufacturing process or even to advancements made in aviation fuel refinement. But their real interest is not in knowing what the actual airspeed of the plane is, it's to build a plane that matches the original data as closely as possible. In all likelihood no two production machines will have the exact same performance anyway. Then there's the whole issue of being associated with another for-proft company with no control over the IP.

 

Again, I would seriously consider asking someone who bought a machine from VA to share the anecdotal data, which we know is likely more accurate than the historical measurements.

 

 

P.S. For the record, I still believe the Fokker Dr.I is a 175-180km/h (IAS/TAS) machine at sea level, 165km/h (TAS) at 4000m.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

but on the whole the rotary was the superior engine for most of the war.

The Flying Dutchman didn‘t think so at all. Engines that cap out in power at 160 hp were ok as far as 1916, but then times, they were a-changing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this cooperation between vintage aeroplane Aviator and Mr P. Will bring us in the end lots of fun ,for example learning how do proper turns to counter  centrifugal force which we heard /read/ were lectured  plenty about in case of rotary engines. 

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The Flying Dutchman didn‘t think so at all. Engines that cap out in power at 160 hp were ok as far as 1916, but then times, they were a-changing...

Yes he did, he bough Oberusel factory to  provide supply of engines to his planes and kept shoehorning rotary engines into new design until end of the war to ge rid of surplus. It's a miracle D.VII runs on in-line engine.

On the whole, I think Entente rotaries were going up to 200 hp (and German bi-rotaries up to 240). German logistic problems made use of rotary inpractical, for completly differnet reasons.

As of VA, where is "partnership" supposed to lie? We want them to do specific testing then provide us with information about their product that we happen to need... for what, exactly? For sake of shared passion? Unless 1CGS pays them for running tests and selling the plane information, the supposed "partnership" is really a call for charity. 1CGS don't have anything VA want, likely not even money to afford their prices.

Imagine FPS developers asking H&K for detailed oinformation  on their guns so they could be simulated in game with complete fidelity. Imagine what answer wold be.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Yes he did, he bough Oberusel factory to  provide supply of engines to his planes and kept shoehorning rotary engines into new design until end of the war to ge rid of surplus. It's a miracle D.VII runs on in-line engine.

Not at all. Oberursel happened just to be the only engine company he was allowed to buy, mostly due to to the fact thar they produced a type of engine nobody in the industry wanted. He was compelled to buy that because he realized that if he couldn‘t produce complete aircraft, his company would invarably be „downgraded“ to contract building. In consequence, he‘d make profit during the war and as soon demand drops (after the war, he was thinking ahead), he‘d be stuck with a large shop that can‘t produce aircraft of their own design. He would be out of business at once. Antony wanted the inline Mercedes. That was the only engine he really cared for. But being a foreigner, he was given last access to those engines. Albatros et. al., they made sure things stayed that way.

 

But it is indeed almost a miracle that the DVII got a Mercedes engine. But not because Fokker supposedly preferred rotaries. That took a lot of lobbying. It is the engine Fokker always wanted. He finally got the engine then.

 

The Dr.I only exists because Fokker realized he‘s stuck with the bottom of the barrel as engines are concerned. In process, he set for design goals that were within reach and made an aircraft that can do everything except flying fast (that was out of the question, as the competition could have almost twice the power), even sacrificing endurance to keep it small and light. And people fell for that because the very top of all pilots did impressive things with it. Just compare what you can do with a Bristol fighter in comparison.

 

And nobody ever really used rotaries past 160 hp if they had the alternative. Not after the war, not ever. Of course, they played around with these designs, especially since when what you do is building rotaries, you might try to get more power. But building a handful of such designs hardly proves any operational viability of the design itself. Siemens-Schuckert etc., if they went for inline engines, they had to wait „in line“ for engines. Funny rotaries were available in homeopathic numbers, hence they produced a homeopathic number of such aircraft. For practical purposes in that case, the alternative to a funny rotary would have been none at all.

 

A rotary powered aircraft could only be made relatively quick and in large numbers if you made it very light. This precludes many applications and sets clear limits regarding payload. One has to keep in mind, these aircraft were not for airshows, they were supposed to be war machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus he is probably a bit fed up with thinking about WW1 planes, what with the whole fraud case.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Flying Dutchman didn‘t think so at all. Engines that cap out in power at 160 hp were ok as far as 1916, but then times, they were a-changing...

 

No, this is wrong and a common misconception about rotary engines. Horsepower is a terrible way to measure the performance of an aero engine.

 

This is not a matter of hocus pocus or whatever The Flying Dutchman or whoever else might say, but a simple matter of physics.

 

Yes, 160hp is not a lot by 1918 standards, but by comparison, here's an 1850 200hp Corliss steam engine:

 

 

ykvAIBF.jpg

 

(it never flew)

 

 

In 1916-17, rotary engines simply had far better power to weight and compression ratios than in-line engines. On planes where power to weight and compression ratio mattered most, scouts that is, they were clearly superior.

 

Take the Sopwith Pup equipped with a Le Rhone 9C 80hp, the engine weighing 270lbs and coming in at 0.30hp/lbs. Compare this to the Albatros D.III equipped with a Mercedes D.III 160hp, the engine weighing 680lbs and coming in at 0.24hp/lbs. On top of that, there was no need to install a radiator or have closed circuit of coolant on board. As for compression ratios, simply due to the centrifugal nature of a rotary engine, the fuel/air mixture would be more compressed at TDC. It's no wonder that Albatros pilots were ordered not to engage Pups above a certain altitude.

 

 

It would take at least until the second half of 1917 for in-line engines to catch up, first with the Mercedes D.IIIaü (200hp, 680lbs, 0.30hp/lbs) and finally for the Hispano-Suiza 8A (200hp, 400lbs, 0.50hp/lbs) to take the crown. Later versions with better compression ratios such as the Hispano-Suiza 8B and Wolseley Viper would further cement that.

 

Even so, even in 1918 one of the most efficient and reliable rotary engine designs remains the Gnome Monosoupape 9N (160hp, 300lbs, 0.53hp/lbs), which matched and even surpassed the Hispano-Suiza at least until the 8B.

 

Rotary engines were discontinued because they were expensive to build, difficult to maintain, required frequent overhauls, could only work reliably with a total loss castor oil lubrication/coolant system (which the Germans ran out of) and lastly would have literally spun themselves apart if power had continued to increase due to increasing RPM. This is how frankly oversized rotary engines began to see the light of day, such as the Bentley BR.1 (150hp) and BR.2 (230hp). These monstrous engines were in no way as efficient as the earlier rotaries had been and could not compete with high compression in-lines either. In fact, the only reason they were used at all was because of their torque and gyroscopic precession: that is, to emulate the Sopwith Camel in an attempt to create the ultimate turn and burn machines.

 

 

The one notable exception here is the 160hp Siemens-Halske Sh.III, which powered the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.

 

Arguably the best engine of the war in arguably the best scout of the war.

 

Of course the Germans cheated when they made it, since the block rotated at 900rpm while the crankshaft counterrotated also at 900rpm, effectively generating 1800rpm of power. So not only was the prop spinning way slower than on other engines, it was doing so far more effectively and without almost none of the adverse effects of a rotary engine. Yes, you can do that, just as long as the law of physics don't catch on. Dieselgate 1918.

 

Engineers at the Siemens-Halske works had designed a radical eleven-cylinder, geared rotary engine based on the experience gained with their smaller nine-cylinder engine. In normal rotary engines the crankshaft was a stationary component around which the crankcase and cylinders revolved at some 1,200 to 1,500 r.p.m. In the Siemens engine the crankshaft revolved in one direction at 900 r.p.m. while the crankcase and cylinders rotated in the opposite direction, also at 900 r.p.m. This achieved a virtual engine speed of some 1,800 for an airscrew speed of only 900 r.p.m.; the obvious main advantage was in increased airscrew efficiency, there were, however, disadvantages in the system. Being a bigger and more powerful engine than its 110-h.p. forebear, the 160-h.p. S.H. III (as it was designated) tended to run a lot hotter and this effect was accentuated by the slow speed at which the cylinders rotated, with consequent reduction in the amount of air cooling obtained. These conditions were further aggravated by the lack of a good grade of castor oil (the universal lubricant for rotary engines) available to the Germans, with the result that there occurred a degree of piston seizure after only several hours running. The most encouraging feature of the engine was that, due to the high compression ratio, it maintained its power at very high altitude and for this reason its development was continued. The engine was fitted with twin magnetos and speed was governed by a proper throttle control, sensitive down to about 350 r.p.m. This was a considerable advance over most rotaries of the period which ran flat out and were only partially controlled by a "blip switch" which cut the spark altogether for as long as depressed, or by a control which cut the spark to certain cylinders, which system (in the Gnome Monos) had a serious attendant fire hazard. Another advantage in the Siemens engine, over standard rotaries, was that a considerable degree of reciprocaton was achieved in the opposite rotation of the cylinder and crankshaft masses which accordingly recduced the gyroscopic forces.

 

— Profile Publications #86: The Siemens Schukert D.III & IV

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

On planes where power to weight and compression ratio mattered most, scouts that is, they were clearly superior.

This is mainly important with very light planes, like fighter planes. As soon as your plane is heavy anyway, maintenance becomes important as well.

 

37 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Take the Sopwith Pup equipped with a Le Rhone 9C 80hp, the engine weighing 270lbs and coming in at 0.30hp/lbs. Compare this to the Albatros D.III equipped with a Mercedes D.III 160hp, the engine weighing 680lbs and coming in at 0.24hp/lbs. On top of that, there was no need to install a radiator or have closed circuit of coolant on board. 

If I had the choice of equipping my air force with Pups or Albatri, the choice would be easy.

 

37 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The one notable exception here is the 160hp Siemens-Halske Sh.III, which powered the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.

 

Arguably the best engine of the war in arguably the best scout of the war.

„I need the superior fighter!“ - „I can give you 100 SS D.IV, and happy World War!“

 

Edit: Dieselgate 1918, love that one! 😂

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

This is mainly important with very light planes, like fighter planes. As soon as your plane is heavy anyway, maintenance becomes important as well.

 

I don't doubt that was the reason why rotary engines were discontinued, but it wasn't because they lacked horsepower as you stated above.

 

 

Quote

If I had the choice of equipping my air force with Pup or Albatri, the choice would be easy.

 

„I need the Superior fighter!“ - „I can give you 100 SS D.IV, and happy World War!“

 

I stated you facts and you're giving me feelings. That's cool, we can sit around a campfire and talk about them. I prefer an army of Pups, if possible with pink polka dots.

 

From an engineering perspective, the Siemens-Halske Sh.III / Siemens-Schuckert D.IV was a technical marvel, even if it didn't change the course of the war. Counter-rotating rotaries could have had a future beyond the SS D.IV, but with advancements in in-line engine compression and the far less complex air-cooled radial engine, it wasn't to be. They remain one of the most efficient non-turbocharged piston engine designs to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I stated you facts and you're giving me feelings.

Fact is that there was no significant number of rotaries past 160 hp. These are not a lot of hp.

 

51 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

They remain one of the most efficient non-turbocharged piston engine designs to this day.

Wot? They are a nightmare in anything but dry weight and torque relative to power output.

 

51 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Counter-rotating rotaries could have had a future beyond the SS D.IV, but with advancements in in-line engine compression and the far less complex air-cooled radial engine, it wasn't to be.

Of course not, who would plan something that in principle reached the very limits of what you can hope for, when inline engines can do everything of that, but can do so reliably? If there was a good reason going down that road, people would have done so. This while not talking down the qualities of the SS D.IV. The plane is great. But it is no reason that a sane business man would bet his entire company on in 1917 when you see inlines catching up. You want something that works, reliably so. 

 

EDIT: Anyway, lets hope Peter Jackson keeps his enthusiasm in WW1 aviation.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Fact is that there was no significant number of rotaries past 160 hp. These are not a lot of hp.

 

Again you're thinking completely in terms of horsepower.

 

Quote

Wot? They are a nightmare in anything but dry weight and torque relative to power output.

 

And again you're thinking completely in terms of horsepower, rather than the increased efficiency of a slower rotating propeller, increased compression ratios without the use of overcompression and (with the SS D.IV a first for German scouts) the use of a four-bladed propeller.

 

The design was plagued by cooling problems with the slower rotating engine and notoriously unreliable due to the lack of castor oil, but it was also a first step in solving many of the issues of earlier rotary designs.

 

Quote

Of course not, who would plan something that in principle reached the very limits of what you can hope for, when inline engines can do everything of that, but can do so reliably? If there was a good reason going down that road, people would have done so. This while not talking down the qualities of the SS D.IV. The plane is great. But it is no reason that a sane business man would bet his entire company on in 1917 when you see inlines catching up. You want something that works, reliably so. 

 

You're detracting from your initial statement that 160hp was not enough for an engine past 1916.

 

You're right that fighter doctrine was shifting from having light maneuverable fighters which required expertly trained pilots to dogfight "at angles" to having heavier machines with more raw horsepower and firepower, which were easier to maintain and required less training. From a doctrine and financial point of view it makes complete logical sense. And yet, if reliability and ease of use was the only thing that mattered, we would never have seen the rise of jet fighters, which were in turn built on older gas turbine technology that was notoriously treated as too unreliable for use as an aero engine. Ironically it was to achieve the exact opposite, which is to say: everything had already been done to drag out the lifespan of the in-line/radial engine, including counter-rotating propellers.

 

In the right hands (and indeed with some improvements in reliability) rotary scouts would have still been competitive against faster scouts until at least the late 20's. Aviation history has proven this time and time again (see the Me 262, Mig Alley, Vietnam, and if we are ever unlucky enough to find out, the absolute turkey that is the F-35 against anything the Russians have built in the last 20 years). Besides, we all know very well that the day that either the Sopwith Snipe or Siemens-Schuckert D.IV appear on the scene, everyone and his dog will be flying them.

 

 

EDIT: I do think this thread illustrates why Peter Jackson wants nothing to do with us. 😁

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Besides, we all know very well that the day that either the Sopwith Snipe or Siemens-Schuckert D.IV appear on the scene, everyone and his dog will be flying them.

I essentially agree with all your statements and I do most enjoy the rotaries in the game, no question about that.

 

And yes, bottom line I do think only about horsepower regarding any power unit suitable to mount in a plane. That is because in the real world, more horsepower not only gets Joe Average in in battle, it also gets him home. And that is what I would build an airforce on, rather than building it on a thousand victims that I need to peel out one Jack Fantastic. In the real world, I would want No. 56 Squadron, not one Voss. In the game however, vice versa.

But I acknowledge that other peoples mileage on that may vary, even people that actually sent their aircrew to die because they thought that a good way to do their business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the life of me, I could never figure out why Peter Jackson hasn't produced a modern film based on WWI aviation. Just imagine an actual GOOD movie based on The Red Baron, or any squadron or pilot(s) from WWI. There are so many great and interesting possibilities available to him yet nothing has ever materialized ...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, the_dudeWG said:

For the life of me, I could never figure out why Peter Jackson hasn't produced a modern film based on WWI aviation.

 

Try sending him your screenplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

That is because in the real world, more horsepower not only gets Joe Average in in battle, it also gets him home.

 

Haha, well, in the real world, if you would find me in the Belgian Military Aviation at all, and if I were fortunate enough to be part of a scout squadron which allowed pilots to pick their ride (they were a rather bourgeois bunch who got planes delivered from both the French and British), you would likely find me cowering inside a SPAD VII. Maybe, maybe, maybe in a Hanriot HD.1, because it was rather fast and handled well. Definitely not a Camel. In fact, all Belgian Camels were relegated to escort duty because none of the scout pilots wanted to fly it, except for Jan Olieslagers, who was a pre-war pilot and motorcycle speed record holder. Too dangerous. Now a nice, big fat, stable and fast Breguet 14. Yeah, that would be just perfect for me.

 

But I accept that, and yet in the right hands, there is still very little that tops a Camel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...