Sir Peter Jackson - partnership?

[Cynic_Al]

10 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

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.

 

 

 

No matter how up-to-date such data might be, there's no certainty that it would be accurate to the exact locale in which the machine were being tested, therefore the result would have limited credibility.

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

No matter how up-to-date such data might be, there's no certainty that it would be accurate to the exact locale in which the machine were being tested, therefore the result would have limited credibility.

 

On a stable overcast day with little to no wind or turbulence (a "flight simulator day"), you can probably get a reasonably accurate result, especially if you repeat the test over, say, four 10-minute legs flown in right angles to each other, while doing your own wind calculations and then average everything out. You will still face tiny gusts. Your engine might be slightly under- or overperforming. You will wonder whether you should maintain altitude on your altimeter or GPS altitude (GPS, the answer is always GPS). But the result should put you in the ballpark, at least. And then the next day you'll do it all over again, you'll get a completely different result and wonder what the hell you are doing with your life.

[SeaW0lf]

From what I recall from Gould Lee, from two books that are basically about the duel Albatros / Pup, the advantage of the Pup at the top ceiling of the Albatros was because it was light and had good wings, just a kite with a motor, so it could hover above the Albatros above 19000ft, but the Albatros was faster and had more performance within its ceiling. I won't read the books again, but I recall Albatroses bouncing hopeless Pups down below that could only prop hang for a sec before being bounced again. The Albatros was faster and had two guns. Just above 19.000feet (apparently the ceiling of the Albatros) is that the Pups could hover and bounce the Albies.

 

From the books, he had a stressful experience against the Albatroses, which was also a plane that gave a hard time to the early SE5s according to the accounts in High in the Empty Blue (amazing book). The same with the Tripehound apparently. It had a splendid ceiling due to its wings. With the later models, I think the rotaries started to being used as low level scouts due to its lower speeds but exceptional torque at lower altitudes - vide Werner Voss, who with his Fokker F.1 retired 4 of the 10 SE5as from that fatidic fight before being shot down.

 

Hence my sentence: first because Vintage Aviator would not incur in the error of mentioning IAS. Second because 188km/h is already darn good for 5.000ft for a plane that has no altitude throttle or that kind of thing.

[JG1_Vonrd]

On 10/13/2019 at 2:37 PM, J5_Hellbender said:

To the best of my knowledge, Plank is Peter Jackson.

OMG... busted a gut laughing ?  (but... could it be?)

[J2_Trupobaw]

Just to clarify - drag force for given airframe that engine must overcome is quadratic function of speed. WW1 frames created lot if drag, so big propotrion of engine power went into overcoming it (at square root efficiency). Which means, if you swap planes engine with same mass double horsepower unit, you can expect getting sqrt(2)= 1.4 times better top horisontal speed. Difference between 160 and 200 hp will be sqrt(1.25); maybe 10% better.

 

We *refer* to engines using their horsepower on sea level as easy way to tell engine models apart, but the real distinguishing part was how much of that power they could retain with altitude. We may speak of 160 hp or 200 hp Mercedes, but the difference did not lie in that 10% speed gain on sea level; it lied in fact that 1916 old engine bled horsepower with altitude and 1918 kept it. On 3000m difference between "160" and "200" hp engines was bigger than 4:5.

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, II./JG1_Vonrd said:

OMG... busted a gut laughing 

 

You should have warned us about your dangerously-low amusement threshold. In future we'll just have to be more careful.

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 But the result should put you in the ballpark, at least.

 

The ultimate goal of precision measurement, no doubt.

 

And then the next day you'll do it all over again, you'll get a completely different result and wonder what the hell you are doing with your life.

 

Or why you didn't use the correct instrument in the first place

[=IRFC=Gecko]

G'day all,

 

Ok some myth busting.

 

 

No Rotaries post WWI not ever well .................

 

Sopwith Snipe.

     Selected as the RAF standard fighter post war and remained in service until 1926 when the last was retired from service.

The reason for it being chosen was because it was more advanced, supplied plug in support for heated flying gear. Carried LOX for pilots and this was standard fit. Although not the fastest it kept it's speed at altitude (up to 25000ft) due to it's  MIGHTY BR.2 of 230hp. It didn't handle as viciously as the Camel, provided better visibility all round and was almost as good a turn fighter as the aircraft it replaced. Another major advantage of this aircraft was it's acceleration due to it's BR.2. Ohh and it was strong!

 

All engines in WW1 were heavily maintenance dependent including inline engines. That's just a fact. One advantage of the Rotary has over inline engines was it was easily replaced - unbolt, unplug oil, fuel - reverse process and plane good to go no tinkering with radiator pumps etc etc etc. Were they more difficult to maintain I don't know I have never spoken to a WWI rotary mechanic but I expect with as many in service as used that maintenance routines were down pat on all engines.

 

I believe the Sopwith Tripe at The Vintage Aviator LTD has a Radial engine not rotary. Yes rotary versions did fly with Pitot Tubes.

 

Snip emulating the Camel - no the Camel was purpose built to do what it did - the fact it produced a vicious by-product from its design is irrelevant. It is what it is, a killer of friend and foe alike. All rotary aircraft suffered from the torque effect of the engine - Sopwith just emphasised it with Camel with the layout of everything in the first 13ft of the airframe - engine, pilot fuel and it's purpose designed wing layout. Other Rotary aircraft were not designed this way and as a result didn't have the same issue.

 

Relegated to ground attack - interesting but ALL Entente aircraft that carried bombs were dual tasked to ground attack mid 1918 due to the impact this was having on the now falling apart Central Front. The argument that the Camel was relegated is in actual fact true but not true in the sense of what was happening at the front. All aircraft including the Snipe conducted ground attack missions. The Camel was still shooting down and engaged in air combat against Central aircraft up until the last days of the war including D.VII's. It was slow v the Roland D.VI and VIa, Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.XII but in a fight it could and did still handle all of them when flown within it's normal operating flight envelope.

 

Dr.1 - Slow as a Snail fart. So very very very slow. It was not as fast as some would like to believe, sorry, but even when reading the German documents one of the main factors of its removal as a front line aircraft was SPEED and it's total lack of it. The Camel, Se5a and Spads were all vastly quicker. Before anyone chimes in with but Entente pilots said the Camel was slow compared to it's contemporaries note its contemporaries were in fact the Se5a and Spad so yes it was slow compared to them. Other than that it was as fast as Central planes and only marginally slower than others in service until the arrival of said VI/VIa, D.VII and D.XII. I don't include the E.V/D.VIII or the Siemens as they both saw limited frontline service but I guess Camels were indeed slower than those as well.

 

Food for thought.

 

Snail fart or Turtle fart the Dr.1 is still slow so very very slow.

 

Shot

 

Now to fly the real Camel again!

 

 

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

The ultimate goal of precision measurement, no doubt.

 

Or why you didn't use the correct instrument in the first place

 

Well, you're right of course, when the stakes are this high we can no longer afford to have our measurements be off even by 1 or 2km/h due to the physical limitations of GPS.

 

I can picture the phonecall to BAE Systems being a little awkward.

 

 

"So, Mr @Chill31, are you absolutely sure you want us to install our multi-million dollar stealth bomber laser airspeed sensing instrument on your wood and canvas triplane?"

 

"Yes ma'am, I got a bunch of nerds on a flightsim forum to pay for it. Please don't tell anyone, but I think one of them is Peter Jackson."

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

Selected as the RAF standard fighter post war and remained in service until 1926 when the last was retired from service.

The reason for it being chosen was because it was more advanced, supplied plug in support for heated flying gear. Carried LOX for pilots and this was standard fit.

Yes, there are more reasons for selecting a „standard fighter“ for an airforce. The short supply of 300 hp hispano suizas from France gave the British a taste of how Antony felt like four years before. That alternative engines also were difficult to procure during those miserable post war years didn‘t help either. As the „standard fighter“ melted down to one squadron for home defense, I wouldn‘t consider patching together the scraps of the last war as sign future developments. 

 

Edit: I‘d say the single most important factor about your engine is whether you can procure it or not.

Edited October 15, 2019 by ZachariasX

[Panzerlang]

43 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

Edit: I‘d say the single most important factor about your *good* engine is whether you can procure it or not.

Fixed that for you.

[J2_Trupobaw]

2 hours ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

G'day all,

 

Ok some myth busting.

 

 

No Rotaries post WWI not ever well .................

 

Sopwith Snipe.

     Selected as the RAF standard fighter post war and remained in service until 1926 when the last was retired from service.

The reason for it being chosen was because it was more advanced, supplied plug in support for heated flying gear. 

 

Ok, some more myth busting; Snipe was selected as peacetime scout because it was cheap, dirty, cost effective and  available when British were reducing RAF and shutting down their aviation industry. If Entente remained on wartime footing, Martinsyde Buzzard would replace Snipe (and S.E.5, and Spad, and everything else). 

 

(German pilots uniformly recall Dr.I as faster than D.V; at least in early months of service. The reason it was replaced was maintenance problems and availability of D.VII; the worn down Dr.Is were passed to D.Va squadrons and used to the last; as long as there were D.Vas, Dr.I was seen as improvement)

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

"So, Mr @Chill31, are you absolutely sure you want us to install our multi-million dollar stealth bomber laser airspeed sensing instrument on your wood and canvas triplane?"

 

"Well when you put it that way it does sound like a ludicrous overkill, so I'll just use EBay."

Edited October 15, 2019 by Cynic_Al

[=IRFC=Gecko]

 

All of what you say is true Trupo.

 

It was cheap, a known quantity, a trouble free aircraft available for post war use but you will note IT WAS SELECTED. They manufactured the engines which were far more trouble free the Hispano engines (which were also licence built in England). Engine development for the faster next generation aircraft for the RAF was troublesome (both Radial and inline) so they went with a known and readily available and maintainable airframe. Cheap is exactly what was needed as it was highly unlikely that England would be dragged into another large scale war so the military does what it always does - cheap and available.

 

You make an interesting point that German airman recall that the Dr.1 was faster than a D.Va - that also could be true as the D.Va was also known as a slow aircraft not the pimped out ride some report it to be. Kermit Weeks described the Camel as a thoroughbred and a sports car compared to the Albatros. Considering he flies them I'll go with his assessment.

 

Berthold was told to hand in is Albatros and Pfalz III aircraft for one of his Jasta which were slated to receive the D.VII in June 18. They didn't appear and he received a sqn of Dr.1 instead. He grounded the entire sqn as the aircraft were as he put it worn out, obsolete and of no use fighting the Se5, Spad and Camels that they were up against. Those Dr.1 were handed to another sqn but never used while under Bertholds command it should be noted he didn't take back his D.Va or Pfalz III either and the sqn remained grounded until replacement D.VII airframes arrived.

 

It should be noted that even an obsolete aircraft handled with skill, courage and determination can best a better aircraft.

 

 

Shot

 

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

10 hours ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

I believe the Sopwith Tripe at The Vintage Aviator LTD has a Radial engine not rotary. Yes rotary versions did fly with Pitot Tubes.

 

You're right! From the pics (not very detailed) it looked like a Clerget, but it is a modern engine. Surprising, since they even produce engines there.

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

because it was cheap, dirty, cost effective and  available when British were reducing RAF and shutting down their aviation industry.

I find the idea of „cost efficiency“ relating in any way to military as much heart warming as preposterous.

 

The only metric that applies is whether in principle you can source an item or not. War is never cost efficient in the least as long as you are not conducting war for the purpose of plain looting.

 

Else, when a** is on the line, you just print as much money as you require to finance the theoretical max. output of your items required to conduct your war. The fact that this is not sustainable economically is mainly noted by the civilians that suddenly find sawdust mixed in their bread. Nothing of real concern to any military branch though. Kanonen statt Butter!

 

Let‘s just say the Snipe was available and it performed reasonably well. So, why not use it? Especially since most other factories were shut down. After this leftover of the war was decommissioned, the Snipes super engine died along with it. Because, obvious.

 

2 hours ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

You make an interesting point that German airman recall that the Dr.1 was faster than a D.Va - that also could be true as the D.Va was also known as a slow aircraft not the pimped out ride some report it to be. Kermit Weeks described the Camel as a thoroughbred and a sports car compared to the Albatros. Considering he flies them I'll go with his assessment.

A „Thoroughbred“ is in principle an agile, unstable aircraft. It is much less so a statement regarding the absolute flight speed or performance per se. It‘s about requiring constant control and about being responsive to control input. Nada más. Back in the days, People in general were very aware of what it is like to ride a horse. And they intrinsically knew the differences in horses. Today people mostly don‘t (now we know cars), and what was an obvious analogy back then is mostly misunderstood today. Of course the Camel handled that way, that was his very design goal. Downside is, it killed its pilots almost at the rate of the Germans shooting them. (Thoroughbreds are great in disposing incompetent riders. Thoroughbred is not a compliment in every context!) But if you are a great ace and if you want to dogfight, hey, it‘s your ride. 

 

Reading accounts of a hundred years past often make people misunderstand analogies. The Spitfire is a Thoroughbred, quiet obviously. Naturally it is often referred to as such. But it is certainly not the fastest of them all. But it is quiet clear that the Spitfire is the Thoroughbred and not the Tempest, despite the latter being considerably more powerful and faster.

 

The Albatros is by late 1917 standards not a fast aircraft, yet it will out dive the Camel. That a brand new Dr.I can feel as fast or faster than battle worn Albatri is plausible, especially when taking the significantly superior climb in consideration. But that doesn‘t change the fact that by late 1917 the Dr.I was a slow aircraft with limited endurance. In this sense, the A6M Zero by 1944 was a much better plane, because it was also slow and nimble, but at least in contrast it had a big endurance. Yet, lacking world famous (in the west) pilots, it is mostly seen as one of those „paper kites“. That some individual pimped his Dr.I significantly (with engines and lubrication he had to hunt for over the lines) doesn‘t change that fact. It still remained fitted with an engine where ideal lubrication wasn’t really available. Also, imagine the Germans tasked their pilots to cross the lines with Dr.I for deeper intrusion into enemy airspace. You think they would have returned at the hand of the faster SPADs? Opinion about that plane would have switched quickly. The British did such with slower aircraft during „Bloody April“. Guess how that went.

 

The Dr.I is certainly a fun aircraft, but its greatness is mainly mediated through the famous people flying it. The Germans were certainly not sad getting rid of it, despite the screaming of some rare individuals who‘s pay grade didn‘t really entitle them for wielding an opinion in the first place.

 

19 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

You're right! From the pics (not very detailed) it looked like a Clerget, but it is a modern engine. Surprising, since they even produce engines there.

They sell both the Bentley BR2 and the LeRhone 9J. They are new builds.

Edited October 15, 2019 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, =TM=I_Got_Shot said:

 

It should be noted that even an obsolete aircraft handled with skill, courage and determination can best a better aircraft.

 

 

One on one or even the occasional squadron battle perhaps, if care is taken to maximize tactical advantages: height, numbers, sun. But generally it is just a way to kill your own pilots and boost enemy morale without any benefits. Saying that your own men have greater skill courage and determination than the enemy may be useful PR for civilians or your own men, but to actually believe it as a base for planning is very unwise. Agree with you about the Albatross though: hugely over-rated. The key thing was having two MGs that sort of worked.

 

46 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I find the idea of „cost efficiency“ relating in any way to military as much heart warming as preposterous.

 

The only metric that applies is whether in principle you can source an item or not. War is never cost efficient in the least as long as you are not conducting war for the purpose of plain looting.

 

Else, when a** is on the line, you just print as much money as you require to finance the theoretical max. output of your items required to conduct your war. The fact that this is not sustainable economically is mainly noted by the civilians that suddenly find sawdust mixed in their bread. Nothing of real concern to any military branch though. Kanonen statt Butter!

 

You are only partially right: printing as much money as you require is the default, but it will not do you much good when you have to pay for something in another country's currency. In WW1 and the first half of WW2 the UK was essentially financing a large part of the USA's output and paying for it by a massive fire sale of two hundred year's worth of overseas investments to generate the dollars that the US demanded. A little more cost efficiency might not have gone amiss. 

  

Edited October 15, 2019 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Agree with you about the Albatross though: hugely over-rated.

Seen from the observers seat of a BE2, they probably begged to differ. In 1916 and early 1917, it certainly was a good proposition. But after that... I agree. But it has its looks.

[SeaW0lf]

It would require a foundation to study those planes and test them with context and methodology. 

 

Javier Arango seems to contradict Kermit, since the former gave low numbers for the Camel. Memorial Flight Association gives the Dr1 180kmh, from data from the Service Technique de l'Aéronautique (STAé) at Villacoublay aerodrome, the same association that helped 777 Studios with a lot of technical data. Mikael Carlson now provides 86kts for the Dr1 at cruise speed (95kts for the DVII / DIIIaü, 200hp). McCook Field test (1921) gives 185km/h for the D8. From accounts, Thomas Crean says that Voss left behind his two wingmen flying Pfalzes DIII on that last day to the point that they were not even sure if it was Voss they saw engaging the 60th Squadron on the horizon. So he opened some good 5/10km on them, and I don't think climbrate alone can do that (disregarding wear and tear).

 

Which goes back to the relative performance being the best route so far in my opinion.

[Chill31]

My Dr.I is my test bed where I ultimately plan to use this device to record flight parameters: Levil BOM

 

I've wanted to do this since Rise of Flight came out over 10 years ago!  Finally, I am on the brink of accomplishing this.

 

I have to be successful on my own before I can ask someone (perhaps PJ) to allow me to study their aircraft using the same methods.  

 

I am in the home stretch of fabrication for the Dr.I prior to flight I have ambitions to fly it before the end of October, but sometimes life has other plans.

 

I am going to Rhinebeck Aerodrome this weekend to learn from their expertise and hopefully build some good relationships that would afford me the opportunity to use the BOM on their aircraft in the future. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Chill31

[CAFulcrum]

I'd rather see him direct or work on a single player campaign or do some cutscene work.  The sim would give him a medium to tell a story.

 

Sure, that story might involve flying through a canyon/cave/volcano, dodging falling buildings, trees and german soldiers riding worgs all while being chased by a hundred dr1s with goblins at the helm in the middle of a raging snowstorm for about 15 minutes or so, but I think it'd still be a better use of his talents wrt FC.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

My Dr.I is my test bed where I ultimately plan to use this device to record flight parameters: Levil BOM

 

I've wanted to do this since Rise of Flight came out over 10 years ago!  Finally, I am on the brink of accomplishing this.

 

I have to be successful on my own before I can ask someone (perhaps PJ) to allow me to study their aircraft using the same methods.  

 

I am in the home stretch of fabrication for the Dr.I prior to flight I have ambitions to fly it before the end of October, but sometimes life has other plans.

 

I am going to Rhinebeck Aerodrome this weekend to learn from their expertise and hopefully build some good relationships that would afford me the opportunity to use the BOM on their aircraft in the future. 

 

Exiting time for us to see and hear the comparison between the real  and virtual. Personally I'm interested in how the  gyroscopic precession and adverse yaw impact real aeroplane in sorts of different circumstances.   Good to have you sir ,you are one of the kind who has opportunity to fly real vintage plans, enjoy the sim and pass comments or data to make this ever better, it's now  one kind in the world but with this could be even more special . I really hope that this project or interest  of yours could someday bring our community even better approximation of combat  dynamics  to our virtual fights   Thanks and Kind Regards.

[=IRFC=Gecko]

 

G'day,

 

Cost efficiency. Military is not noted for it at all, the Clerget 9b was actually available for use in 1916 but was rejected by the establishment as to expensive additionally the BF upgrade was also available before the engine was used in combat aircraft - once again expence stopped it's use. Remember the British didn't issue parachutes because they feared the pilots would bail out even if the plane could be saved .... cost, not the human cost, but the material expence drove that decision by men who never took any risks at all.

The military were not deciding what aircraft they got post WWI, at least not solely, it was the bean counters who decided especially after the loss of men and material. The modern military will always want the best but 100 plus years ago that certainly wasn't the case even today most military institutions get what the bean counters are willing to give them and at times that is not the best available.

Those making the decisions and the leaders didn't actually have to share the risk of combat - it was nothing more than figures in a ledger and to them how long they could maintain or sustain minimal expence and expenditure to continue grinding away at the war for the win.

 

As SeaWolf said the only way to really know is to test them all under the same conditions using multiple pilots flying each plane using the same testing parameters. We will never really know what these aircraft are or were capable of. Simply put when you are on a two way rifle range your more likely to take extreme risks to survive if no other choice is available.

 

As for the constant quoting of Voss leaving behind his Pfalz's though true it doesn't prove anything at all. Quite simply the Dr.1 climbs faster and at a higher speed. The Pfalz D.III was noted for its poor slow climb rate and as such during that climb they were left behind. If it had been a level flight chase and the Dr.1 had left them behind I would lend some credibility to the argument but it wasn't.

 

Wow the Albatros can out dive a Camel - yes it can so they could chose when to engage or not but only if they sighted the enemy first or held the tactical upper hand at the commencement of the engagement. If not then all bets are off like any engagement involving any aircraft of any type. Technical superiority isn't always an automatic win for those that hold it.

 

Shot

 

 

 

 

[Stumble]

I met this guy in RoF the other week who said he used to work for the airshows where he was apart of the ground crew moving planes around and whatnot. That was a few years ago however, and he said he never actually met Peter Jackson. I wonder how involved Peter Jackson really is with it.

 

I still do think this is an awesome idea! I'm sure he has enough spare time for an additional project

[WWChunk]

His model company (Wingnut Wings) just folded its tent, so I doubt he’s want to jump into something like this. Especially considering how far along in development FC already is. I’m sure his vast fortune would help, just not seeing why he’d be willing to part with a large chunk of it. 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, Stumble said:

I met this guy in RoF the other week who said he used to work for the airshows where he was apart of the ground crew moving planes around and whatnot. That was a few years ago however, and he said he never actually met Peter Jackson. I wonder how involved Peter Jackson really is with it.

 

I still do think this is an awesome idea! I'm sure he has enough spare time for an additional project

Buy him a copy of FC and see what he thinks.

[Stumble]

Well, for someone who's flown replica ww1 planes before, flight sims must be quite boring. Still tho, it would be awesome!

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

13 minutes ago, Stumble said:

Well, for someone who's flown replica ww1 planes before, flight sims must be quite boring. Still tho, it would be awesome!

Did he get a chance to dog fight in them? I'm sure he has VR.

Oh you never had the chance to fly with a hot Liberian? No idea what your missing.

Edited May 24, 2020 by NO.20_W_M_Thomson

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Did he get a chance to dog fight in them? I'm sure he has VR.

I remember TVAL did actually play laser-tag with a Dr.I and a R.E.8 before. It was up on YouTube but I can't find the link anymore. Shame...I wanted to show @J28w-Broccoli ... literal laser hoses!! ?

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

5 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I remember TVAL did actually play laser-tag with a Dr.I and a R.E.8 before. It was up on YouTube but I can't find the link anymore. Shame...I wanted to show @J28w-Broccoli ... literal laser hoses!! ?

Doubt Peter was in those that played laser tag.

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Doubt Peter was in those that played laser tag.

Hahah, absolutely not...IIRC Adam Savage was in the rear gun of the R.E - Peter was watching from the ground

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Larner

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Hahah, absolutely not...IIRC Adam Savage was in the rear gun of the R.E - Peter was watching from the ground

Nah that was just a myth that got busted. lol, God I crack my self up.

[Chill31]

13 hours ago, Stumble said:

Well, for someone who's flown replica ww1 planes before, flight sims must be quite boring. Still tho, it would be awesome!

Flight sim is still awesome! And great fun!

 

Regarding GPS, it is an excellent and reliable tool to determine airspeed.  You fly a 3 or 4 leg pattern long enough for your speed to stabilize following the turn. Average all of the speeds from each leg, and you have an accurate, no wind airspeed.

[J2_Oelmann]

On 10/14/2019 at 10:02 PM, 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. 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 ...

This is true for most WW1 and WW2 stories. Film studios keep doing fantasy things and ignore the awesome real life stories. I fear it might get worse in future, because time is passing leaving the events even more behind and people (people on this board excluded) don't care about history that much these days. Only special effects and CGI.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Peter Jackson is the guy who turned Tolkien books into superhero movies ;), so I doubt he would let source material stop him when making WW1 movie. Perhaps respect for the material is exactly why he's not making a "viable" movie out of it.

Edited May 26, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Peter Jackson is the guy who turned Tolkien books into superhero movies ;), so I doubt he would let source material stop him when making WW1 movie. Perhaps respect for the material is exactly why he's not making a "viable" movie out of it.

 

You shut your w***e mouth! The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a celebrated work of a cinematic art!

 

There is nothing which Peter Jackson could possibly do to bring discred—

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

https://youtu.be/nJOSAwNzyi4#t=2m40s

[FTC_Snowy]

Peter Jackson has done a WWI flying film actually, along with Weta digital. The Australian War Memorial shows it on a daily basis and it’s brilliant. It is an ultra wide screen multi media short film running almost continuously in the WWI display area. Whenever I go to Canberra it is a must see for me.
 

Here is a link to a news article about it:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-16/jackson-behind-war-memorial-display/511858

Edited May 27, 2020 by No.204_Snowy
Formatting and spelling

[Stumble]

Now that you mention that... I went to this air show (not ww2) in Canberra back in 2012. And now I'm starting to remember that apparently we had missed a WW2 air display only a few days earlier. I wonder if that was linked with Sir Peter Jackson, or something completely different. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

On 5/26/2020 at 4:38 AM, J2_Oelmann said:

This is true for most WW1 and WW2 stories. Film studios keep doing fantasy things and ignore the awesome real life stories. I fear it might get worse in future, because time is passing leaving the events even more behind and people (people on this board excluded) don't care about history that much these days. Only special effects and CGI.

 

Wait, so you're telling me you don't want another superhero movie??

 

a.k.a "capetrash"

Edited May 27, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli