4.006 DM Discussion

[Garven]

57 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Locking fuel is a necessary evil which is already commonplace on the WWII side of the game

Lol, no.  I don't think I've seen any major WW2 server other than the air-quake only Berloga server lock fuel loads.  TAW doesn't,  WoL doesn't, and Combat Box doesn't.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Danneskjold

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Sorry, chum...the air's cleaner up at the higher altitudes...and there are still plenty wolves to skin   

Well Bud you do know the Bristol can climb up there too. Especially the FIII will climb pretty damn good with out any bomb loads. We 20's like to go out on the prowl once in a while looking to skin some wolves. We can soften them up for you, Turn those D7F's in to D7 vanilla lol.

[No.23_Triggers]

2 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

We 20's like to go out on the prowl once in a while looking to skin some wolves. 

Good on ya. The Bristol fighter, flown as God intended! 

[BMA_Hellbender]

14 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

Lol, no.  I don't think I've seen any major WW2 server other than the air-quake only Berloga server lock fuel loads.  TAW doesn't,  WoL doesn't, and Combat Box doesn't.

Obviously anyone can run an FC server and use whatever settings they want. Right now Flugpark is sort of a catch-all, including "airquake" (when it's not used for organised events such as Bloody April). I realise very well how unpopular the idea of locked fuel loads is. About as unpopular as bringing back wingshedding. Wait, worse than that: wingshedding, but not for all planes. And yet here we are.

 

Honestly, I'm on your side when it comes to wingshedding messing up multiplayer fun, and I'll help to keep the topic alive. Please keep (respectfully) bashing my suggestions for more realism, but don't be too disappointed if the devs don't revisit the DM. All this reminds me of the poor Sopwith Triplane, the true collateral victim of RoF 1.034. May it rest in peace.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

You know the D7F wouldn't be such a pain in the ass if all you scout pilots hung out with us Bristol pilots more, we can tuck you in under our wings and guard you from the big bad wolf. 

 

"Game within the game" and objectives be damned. 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Don't say that, I just checked: I swore off the Camel around 2011 when the Hanriot and Bristol were released, I'm probably just rubbish in it now. Even then, the only reason I remember it being so good is because we flew it in groups of 3-4, and we didn't turn with it. This is its biggest "secret": it's not made for turning, it's a low level BnZ'ers that just so happens to be able to turn and trick people into killing themselves with it.

 

Against the D.VIIF you're only ever winning because its pilot makes a mistake. You can't outclimb it at any altitude with any Entente machine (I'd wager that a Bentley Camel or late war SPAD could do it at low altitude), and it has a service ceiling of 9000m. The end. For reference: the SPAD has the highest service ceiling on Entente: around 7000m, and the Camel and S.E.5a can go up to around 5000-6000m, but for practical purposes the Camel is useless above 3000m, especially with a historical fuel load.

 

Things were a lot different before the great nerf.  There was no real reason to fly anything but the camel or DR1- and I don't know why this is, but I *swear* that both (especially the DR1) were much easier to fly before the nerf.  It's like they cranked up the gyro effect at the same time.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

All this reminds me of the poor Sopwith Triplane, the true collateral victim of RoF 1.034. May it rest in peace.

I'm sure the Tripe will back to it's glory days in FC, or what ever they'll call it, hopefully they'll change the name to Revenge of the RAF 20's or something cool like that.

[Chill31]

I got to fly the Dr1 today.  The short version, the G forces in FC are correct. I had no idea! Easiest 4 Gs I've ever pulled...I'll post video and information in a new thread for discussion so I don't dilute this one any further.

[No.23_Triggers]

Awesome news! 

[No.23_Starling]

A question for you engineers - should an undamaged Dvii wing be tremendously stronger than an undamaged SPAD wing? I get that if a Spad has lots of bracing etc shot away it has lost strength, but isn’t the Dvii designed to not need bracing wires so therefore has fewer points of failure? Surely then, if the Dvii wing takes fire the bullets can happily pass through the air devoid of bracing no problem, but and which DO hit the wings cause damage? I’m struggling to understand why the Dvii wings are soooo strong now, almost to the level of the Dviii in RoF.

 

Likewise, what in the diii design even with bracing makes it so much tougher than say the Camel wing? 

 

 

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

9 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Locking fuel is a necessary evil which is already commonplace on the WWII side of the game, and which used to happen in RoF on Syndicate Vintage Mission. I don't see it as a nerfing. What else do you see as nerfing?

 

This is not true Bender, why are you repeating that? There is no serious WWII server with locks.

 

9 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

It may have been long ago now, but I was part of a Camel squadron. 100% fuel (or close to) was standard for SYN Vintage missions, and that was back in the days when the top speed of the Fokker Dr.I was around 180km/h and nobody on Central flew the D.VIIF.

 

This topic is about DM - why are some people here constantly pleading for removing planes, adding restrictions? Where you all on on the big online nights during the last three months? We (1PL) flew as Centrals during the whole APRIL - I had only ONE good Dr.1 vs Camel fight during that time, against Zacharias otherwise there were NO Camels to fight against, I had to switch to DVIIF a lot of times because there were no pilots flying the Camel on the map - this absolutely bolloks to request to remove or restict fuel loads for e.g. the Camel as it is rarely flown anyway. This has nothing to do with reality on the FP server. Without the DVIIF the Centrals would not catch anything.

 

I hope FP operators will not listen to those theories, for me who flies FP online almost every day, they are ABSURD!

 

For some scouts the wings come off still too easy and this is fact, and the newest patch only enlarged the disparity IMO. Now some scouts can be taken down mainly only with a pilot kill. The attendance-server-stats prove that all - it needs to be addressed to safe the game, thank you.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

56 minutes ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

This is not true Bender, why are you repeating that? There is no serious WWII server with locks.

 

"Serious WWII" is a slippery slope definition.

 

If we're truly talking "serious WWI", then the fairness and fun of the DM should not be a topic of discussion. There was nothing fair or fun about flying these planes in combat. Brave young people died every day in absurd and inhuman circumstances. We're just trying to have a bit of fun flying online in the comfort of our homes. And as @Chill31 has just confirmed: it's very easy to pull enough gs to rip your wings off even without damage.

 

 

Quote

This topic is about DM - why are some people here constantly pleading for removing planes, adding restrictions?

 

Because the Fokker D.VIIF was released in August 1918 and the rest of the planes are April-May 1918? (not counting Bristol F.III and Wolseley Viper S.E.5a)

 

No one "serious" is talking about removing the Camel.

 

 

Quote

Without the DVIIF the Centrals would not catch anything.

 

I'm not sure what Central needs to catch?

 

They were performing a ground offensive in April 1918 and their planes were flying offensive ground support (Halberstadt CL.II), 7000m+ photographic recon where Entente couldn't climb to (Rumpler C.VII) and "Flying Circus"-type line defense where they would have local air superiority (Albatros, Pfalz, Fokker Dr.I). By 1918 few Central scouts were even allowed to cross into enemy lines.

 

 

Quote

For some scouts the wings come off still too easy and this is fact, and the newest patch only enlarged the disparity IMO. Now some scouts can be taken down mainly only with a pilot kill. The attendance-server-stats prove that all - it needs to be addressed to safe the game, thank you.

 

The fact that the game is no longer balanced and fun in multiplayer doesn't mean it's wrong. If you want balanced fun multiplayer for AirQuake, this planeset is very complicated.

 

If you want "serious WWI", consider making small adjustments to the planeset and hope that the devs add more planes with another volume.

 

 

I feel like I'm the bad guy here... am I really missing something?

Edited June 1, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[unreasonable]

36 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I feel like I'm the bad guy here... am I really missing something?

 

I do not think so. As you have said, what is realistic and what makes for good MP in the eyes of veteran RoF/FC players are two entirely different discussions logically: they might very well be two entirely different simulations.  

 

I wish the discussion of the DM could be in two threads: 1) Discuss realism of DM, and 2) Discuss MP fun of DM, with no reference of "fun" in thread (1) and of "realism" in thread (2).

 

This might reduce the pointless rhetoric. 

 

    

[BMA_Hellbender]

43 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I do not think so. As you have said, what is realistic and what makes for good MP in the eyes of veteran RoF/FC players are two entirely different discussions logically: they might very well be two entirely different simulations.  

 

I wish the discussion of the DM could be in two threads: 1) Discuss realism of DM, and 2) Discuss MP fun of DM, with no reference of "fun" in thread (1) and of "realism" in thread (2).

 

This might reduce the pointless rhetoric. 

 

    

 

Thank you.

 

And done:

 

 

[US103_Baer]

I thought we were discussing the realism, or otherwise, of the DM.

 

The new, selective wing-shedding of a few planes, that otherwise were known for their stout construction, is not a balancing discussion. It is a realism discussion.

[BMA_Hellbender]

8 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

I thought we were discussing the realism, or otherwise, of the DM.

 

The new, selective wing-shedding of a few planes, that otherwise were known for their stout construction, is not a balancing discussion. It is a realism discussion.

Absolutely, in my opinion facts trump all. phrasing

 

The problem is that if the devs declare this to be the most realistic DM they can provide and wingshedding remains rampant, that gameplay in general (and multiplayer in particular) could be negatively affected in the long run. Hence it's important to have both discussions: provide the most accurate data possible to the devs (realism) and find a way for people to still enjoy the game which they paid for (balance).

 

At the moment I'm still hoping to get some DM tweaks, overstress feedback and realism settings — but we could also get none of that.

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

I thought we were discussing the realism, or otherwise, of the DM.

 

The new, selective wing-shedding of a few planes, that otherwise were known for their stout construction, is not a balancing discussion. It is a realism discussion.

 

"Otherwise known for their stout construction" is too vague to be at all useful.  "Stout construction" in the case of a SPAD, for instance, can be interpreted as meaning that the wings did not partially come off in a fast unloaded or 1G dive -  unlike those of Nieuports or Albatri with sesquiplane configuration.  

 

If you have any contemporary documentation that we have not seen of the engineered G limits on these planes, please share.   It may be the case that the game's limits are too high for the thick winged Central scouts, but I do recall seeing a reference yet.  If we could show the developers that, for instance, the Pfalz D.III could not pull +9G I expect they would make a change, but only if we find a better source and/or analysis than they already have.  

 

So far on the factual front we have at least established beyond reasonable doubt that the game's G meter is working just fine, thanks to in game turn tests supported by Chill's RL loop comparisons. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by unreasonable

[No.23_Gaylion]

12 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

"Otherwise known for their stout construction" is too vague to be at all useful.  "Stout construction" in the case of a SPAD, for instance, can be interpreted as meaning that the wings did not partially come off in a fast unloaded or 1G dive -  unlike those of Nieuports or Albatri with sesquiplane configuration.  

 

 

In the historical combat reports of the 93rd, 103rd, and 94th aero squadrons, there is not one mention of a SPAD breaking apart in the air.

 

I think there were in total 3 reports of a german plane breaking apart in the air.

[unreasonable]

33 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

In the historical combat reports of the 93rd, 103rd, and 94th aero squadrons, there is not one mention of a SPAD breaking apart in the air.

 

I think there were in total 3 reports of a german plane breaking apart in the air.

 

Break ups would of course be much rarer in the final months of WW1 when the USAS was invoved.  Incendiaries would do that: planes will go down from whatever destroys a critical component first, using incendiaries would dramatically reduce the average number of hits needed to do this.  

 

Before that era: MvR's victory No.49 29th April 1917

 

SPAD VII 19 Sq. RFC

 

".....I attacked an English SPAD group consisting of three machines. The plane I had singled out broke to pieces while curving and plunged, burning, into the swamp near Lecluse."

 

MvR shot down four SPADS, one collapsed. the VII's wing was substantially the same design as that of the XIII, but a little smaller.  

 

 

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Are we not flying spring 1918?????????

 

There are a huge majority of the claims being listed as "sharp dive", "rolled over in a vrille" and "fell out of control."  These are german machines after being attacked.

 

The only mention so far of a spad breaking apart in the air is a 13th aero plane suffering a direct hit from friendly AA.

 

You can single out aces all you want but I've done the metrics on whole squadrons with a mixed group of pilots-similar to what you'd see online. These guys would be itching to get a kill and be an ace before the war ended. Not one of them mentions enemy planes losing wings in combat. You can search the entire Gorrell history of the air service in WWI by keyword. 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[No.23_Triggers]

17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

".....I attacked an English SPAD group consisting of three machines. The plane I had singled out broke to pieces while curving and plunged, burning, into the swamp near Lecluse."

 

MvR shot down four SPADS, one collapsed. the VII's wing was substantially the same design as that of the XIII, but a little smaller.  

As an additional reference, not one of the SPADs in the other Franks' books were reported as having gone down in pieces. IIRC they mostly crash landed - and at least one burned. I'd have to go back and double-check for exact figures. 

Not saying that Spads should be immune to breaking up, of course. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Are we not flying spring 1918?????????

 

 

No, you are not, because you do not have incendiary bullets.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Balloon guns? 

 

The USAS had a standing order that incendiary rounds were not to be used against other planes, only balloons.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, US93_Larner said:

As an additional reference, not one of the SPADs in the other Franks' books were reported as having gone down in pieces. IIRC they mostly crash landed - and at least one burned. I'd have to go back and double-check for exact figures. 

Not saying that Spads should be immune to breaking up, of course. 

 

Of course - more to the point I am saying that if you want the developers to make adjustments the best way to do it is with documentation about the undamaged G limits, and if possible studies on the effect of battle damage.

 

The historic outcomes, accepting for the moment the broad validity of everyone's analysis, are affected two additional very important variables, namely ammunition mix and pilot behaviour. 

 

FC ammunition mix =/= WW1 1918 ammunition mix

 

FC MP behaviour =/= WW1 pilot behaviour

 

If you want to balance off the variables to get some preferred outcome,  IMHO that belongs in the "Balance" thread.  Here, we should be trying to identify and document individual variables. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Balloon guns? 

 

The USAS had a standing order that incendiary rounds were not to be used against other planes, only balloons.

 

If you believe that the USAS did not use incendiaries against aircraft I have a bridge to sell you.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

If you were to decide what an airframe should be able to handle based on the way most multiplayer pilots fly them, every aircraft would be a clownwagon.

[No.23_Triggers]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Of course - more to the point I am saying that if you want the developers to make adjustments the best way to do it is with documentation about the undamaged G limits, and if possible studies on the effect of battle damage.

 

The historic outcomes, accepting for the moment the broad validity of everyone's analysis, are affected two additional very important variables, namely ammunition mix and pilot behaviour. 

 

FC ammunition mix =/= WW1 1918 ammunition mix

 

FC MP behaviour =/= WW1 pilot behaviour

 

If you want to balance off the variables to get some preferred outcome,  IMHO that belongs in the "Balance" thread.  Here, we should be trying to identify and document individual variables. 

From what I have seen and experienced so far in FC - the SPAD can withstand up to 9 Gs in a sharp pull out of a power-dive (up to 265 km/h - after which the wings go at about 7 Gs) , and can withstand a sustained 6 Gs in a descending corkscrew from 3000m down to treetop level. 5 Gs seems to be light work for the SPAD. 

...until, that is, it has been hit in the wing (Possibly the upper wing is more affected? I need to look into that). Then, seemingly, 5 Gs is extremely dangerous, and you're lucky to survive crossing the 5 G threshold.  The best two flugpark examples I've seen were one pilot taking 5 hits in the wing (seemingly on the flat, from the footage) and breaking up at 4-5G (according to the pilot) - and an example unfortunately witnessed tonight, where a wingman took (apparently) a single hit in the wing while diving and broke up the moment he tried to exit the dive. 

In both examples, the SPAD pilots attempted a gentle pull-out from the dive. 

Re: FC MP behaviour =/= WW1 pilot behaviour.....of course not - but I do think that some elements must be similar, and I think a SPAD attempting to gently exit a dive (I.E - in a long sweeping curve rather than by yanking back ham-fistedly) is a good example of that. In FC, you can fairly easily survive a 360 km/h dive in a SPAD XIII by gently curving out of it - perhaps minus a control surface if you're unlucky. Dives from between 270 - 300 km/h are no real problem if you're careful, and you can even wrench it out of a dive as violently as you like at up to 265 km/h without losing your wings (which I've managed 9G doing). 

I think it's reasonable to assume that this behaviour could reflect, at least partially, a real SPAD pilot (maybe not the wrenching out of a 265 km/h dive bit). They were known to power-dive to evade trouble - both before and after being holed-up by gunfire. In the two video examples (posted over in the 4.006 wing-shedding thread) neither pilot could even have been close to the 360 km/h 'danger' speed. The real pilots had to come out of their power dives at some point to avoid pancaking. I assume they, too, would exit the dives gently in a curving arc, to avoid tearing their wings off. 

Assuming the SPAD in FC dives comparably to the real-life thing (which I don't know if it can - but one source even gave a theoretical redline dive speed of over 470 km/h*), then I just find it hard to accept that as little as 5 rounds (as the parser stated) can render a SPAD unable to recover from a comparatively short dive. 

Charles J. Biddle's book has some nice details about the angles, altitudes and general engine management that he and his wingmen would dive at, and it would seem that they were not shy from really diving those things very fast, and very steep when they needed to. 

I will add the disclaimer that I am obviously very biased in favour of the SPAD. But - I am trying to keep that bias somewhat contained when offering my points. I hope I'm succeeding. 

* I must add that, although this was based on a theory by Professor Y. Rocard, this figure seems, just, too generous. However - based on the fact that it is a mathematical theory, and isn't just wild speculation, I would treat it with at least a degree of credibility. In other words, if this source is remotely credible at all, 360 km/h as a redline for the FC SPAD doesn't seem unreasonably high to me. 
 

[No.23_Gaylion]

49 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

If you believe that the USAS did not use incendiaries against aircraft I have a bridge to sell you.

 

If everyone had incendiary ammunition, why would they issue orders like this?

 

In fact, I know they had balloon guns and used them in combat-they talk about it in after action reports. 

 

Tell me more about this bridge. Is it one of those cool old timey trestle ones?

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[unreasonable]

 

4 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

If everyone had incendiary ammunition, why would they issue orders like this?

 

In fact, I know they had balloon guns and used them in combat-they talk about it in after action reports. 

 

Tell me more about this bridge. Is it one of those cool old timey trestle ones?

 

   The wording simply says to make sure that the planes that are detailed for balloon attack have incendiary ammunition, not that the others were not to be so equipped. 

 

I seem to recall an account of a USAS pilot shooting down a number of Fokker D.VIIs in a single engagement mentioning that he used incendiaries, but cannot place it.   We know for a fact that incendiaries were in common use in both the RFC and GAF by late 1917.   The convention that incendiaries were only to be used on balloons had become a dead letter for them. It is, I concede, possible that the convention was adhered to longer by the USAS but I doubt if in practice it made much difference, unless the USAS limited incendiary load outs because they did not have a sufficient supply.

 

As to the lack of USAS accounts of enemy planes breaking up: that I can well imagine, especially in fights with Fokker D.VIIs, incendiaries or no incendiaries.   They seem fairly hard to break in FC too, which also seems to be a source of complaint to some!

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

From what I have seen and experienced so far in FC - the SPAD can withstand up to 9 Gs in a sharp pull out of a power-dive (up to 265 km/h - after which the wings go at about 7 Gs) , and can withstand a sustained 6 Gs in a descending corkscrew from 3000m down to treetop level. 5 Gs seems to be light work for the SPAD. 
 

 

So would it be fair to say that you think that the FC undamaged G limits are reasonable?  For SPAD, or for the set? 

 

If you also agree that the G-meter works correctly, all we need to worry about is the damage effects of maximum G load. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

You got me there lol

[unreasonable]

edit - Has anyone yet managed to establish whether the technochat G warning, which is apparently plane specific, adjusts for damage?

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

I seem to recall an account of a USAS pilot shooting down a number of Fokker D.VIIs in a single engagement mentioning that he used incendiaries, but cannot place it.  

Lt. Arthur Raymond Brooks, 22d Aero Squadron, IIRC! I think it was three in flames. 
 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

So would it be fair to say that you think that the FC undamaged G limits are reasonable?  For SPAD, or for the set? 

 

If you also agree that the G-meter works correctly, all we need to worry about is the damage effects of maximum G load. 

I can't say I know for sure. 9G seems pretty harsh for a WW1 biplane! As for the G-counter - yes, I agree now. My only doubt was brought on by Chill's initial speculations, but you can't refute a guy with a real G-meter and a real Dr.I telling you that they match up without a real good reason to do so. 

I still do need to do some thorough undamaged and damaged G-load tests for the planes. One of these days....

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Lt. Arthur Raymond Brooks, 22d Aero Squadron, IIRC! I think it was three in flames. 
 

 

Thanks, I will try to find the account.

 

edit The history of 22nd Aero Squadron http://www.gunjones.com/History_of_US22nd_Aero_Sq.pdf  has descriptions of plenty of the squadron's victims going down in flames although nothing specific about what ammunition was used.  They do, however, include details of one fight in which the American airman describes what are certainly phosphorous filled incendiary/explosive bullets being used by the Huns, noting the trails of blue-white smoke and unpleasant smell.  That is an incendiary, not a tracer.

 

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

I can't say I know for sure. 9G seems pretty harsh for a WW1 biplane!

 

It does - that is getting close to the WW2 numbers.  So maybe the SPAD (and others) need their undamaged max G load reduced a little.... (takes cover in bunker).  

Edited June 3, 2020 by unreasonable

[II./JG1_Kliegmann]

One thing I see in about 90% of bounces that I initiate is the pilot jerks up, then immediately loads negative.  Now admittingly, I fly more WWII than WWI, where the negative load is VERY visible, where the entire nose of the plane can be seen below the fuselage.  This happens in seconds.  Personally I dont fly with a joystick, I have a yoke, so my kneejerk reaction is full rudder and aileron, rolling out of the plane of motion, with little or no elevator.  The reason I point this out is this pull/push could add considerably to the number of wing shedding that we see.  I did that with an undamaged Dolphin and tore it apart.  Damage is cumulative, so a minor hit could turn into a Major problem with a high G pull, then immediate negative G push.  So it is possible some of the problem could be from a pilot's flying

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

Damage is cumulative, so a minor hit could turn into a Major problem with a high G pull, then immediate negative G push.  So it is possible some of the problem could be from a pilot's flying

 

This is my conclusion as well, so far.

 

What remains somewhat of a mystery to me is why some planes are largely unaffected after taking damage. The Fokkers I can attribute to wing design. I can only assume that the Pfalz and Bristol (one of the most fragile planes after taking damage in RoF) are then entirely this resistant to damage due to spar size?

 

My one problem with adjusting damage models based on historical reports is the precedent set with adjusting flight models based on historical reports. In other words: RoF 1.034 (historical reports of slow Camels etc.). I genuinely do not want a repeat of that, and then perhaps ending up with invincible wings due to community pressure. That said, FC planes have carried over tweaks from RoF 1.034 (Camel reduced climb, Bristol reduced climb, Pfalz reduced turn and Fokker Dr.I reduced speed), while they all match the published data.

 

It gets even more complex when we consider new data based on flying replicas. The Fokker Dr.I, which we know from @Chill31 has a top speed of 175km/h with a Le Rhone 80hp, has a published top speed of 165km/h with an Oberursel 110hp. Which data do you use? Considering that the planes are flying with different engines, it makes sense not to make hasty adjustments. After all the Sopwith Pup with Le Rhone 80hp was also said to be a very fast machine (around 180km/h). On the other hand, I demonstrated based on video evidence of a flying replica that the Nieuport 28's tail lifts off faster from the ground than it did pre-1.034, and that was adjusted.

 

All this to say: somebody needs to build an exact priceless replica of a SPAD XIII and then start shooting it up.

 

I'm very curious to see what the incendiary ammo rework will bring, though. SPAD (and Hanriot) pilots had to carry special papers with them legitimising the use of balloon guns in case they were captured. Using those rounds on other airplanes was allegedly not a pretty sight. The Colin Robinson in me can't wait for the forum drama.

Edited June 3, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[JtD]

Excuse my ignorance of WW1 aircraft - but weren't g-loads (and other loads) taken mostly be the wiring of the wings? Shouldn't it be therefore pretty simple to get a fairly accurate idea of permissible g-loads by getting the dimensions and material properties of the wires? The wings would hardly factor in, with the exception of late German designs, which had load bearing functions as well (thick wings).

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, JtD said:

Excuse my ignorance of WW1 aircraft - but weren't g-loads (and other loads) taken mostly be the wiring of the wings? Shouldn't it be therefore pretty simple to get a fairly accurate idea of permissible g-loads by getting the dimensions and material properties of the wires? The wings would hardly factor in, with the exception of late German designs, which had load bearing functions as well (thick wings).

 

Hey, hey, get in line when it comes to ignorance of WWI aircraft, I was here first!

 

What you said makes sense, and I think that most of the criticism towards the new DM doesn't come from the actual g tolerance of the wings, but rather the g tolerance after taking damage. If one of those wires snaps, I assume it would lead to those wings being less tolerant to g?

[unreasonable]

46 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

[snip]

 

I'm very curious to see what the incendiary ammo rework will bring, though. SPAD (and Hanriot) pilots had to carry special papers with them legitimising the use of balloon guns in case they were captured. Using those rounds on other airplanes was allegedly not a pretty sight. The Colin Robinson in me can't wait for the forum drama.

 

Incendiaries could be and were fired from all guns, not just balloon guns: after all most planes did not have them.  The whole issue should probably be left to another new thread: I just wanted to point out that using incendiaries in a mix will reduce the proportion of observed structural collapses in real fights.  This should be taken into account in making inferences from historic accounts. 

[JtD]

40 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

If one of those wires snaps, I assume it would lead to those wings being less tolerant to g?

 

If no wires were there the upper and the lower wing would not work as one structural member but as two separate ones, when it comes to taking the g-load. And given that height of the sturctural member factors in as cubic factor, you can imagine that these wires were pretty important. Say you have two 10cm high wings wired together as a perfect 1m high load bearing twin plane structure - if you lose the wires, you end up at less than 1% the strength of the wired construction.

 

Question is, did the wires really take these loads or were they just supports and if so, to what degree?

[Chill31]

3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

It gets even more complex when we consider new data based on flying replicas. The Fokker Dr.I, which we know from @Chill31 has a top speed of 175km/h with a Le Rhone 80hp, has a published top speed of 165km/h with an Oberursel 110hp. Which data do you use? Considering that the planes are flying with different engines, it makes sense not to make hasty adjustments. After all the Sopwith Pup with Le Rhone 80hp was also said to be a very fast machine (around 180km/h). On the other hand, I demonstrated based on video evidence of a flying replica that the Nieuport 28's tail lifts off faster from the ground than it did pre-1.034, and that was adjusted.

My maximum speed, full throttle is about 160 kmh with the 80 Le Rhone on it. (I am going to test it again using my video footage of the GPS though.)  Based on my calculations, the Dr.I with 120 Hp Le Rhone, should go 175-180 kmh.

[slug_yuugen]

2 hours ago, JtD said:

 

If no wires were there the upper and the lower wing would not work as one structural member but as two separate ones, when it comes to taking the g-load. And given that height of the sturctural member factors in as cubic factor, you can imagine that these wires were pretty important. Say you have two 10cm high wings wired together as a perfect 1m high load bearing twin plane structure - if you lose the wires, you end up at less than 1% the strength of the wired construction.

 

Question is, did the wires really take these loads or were they just supports and if so, to what degree?

 

AFAIK the spars take the load and the wires and struts help distribute it between the two wings helping with things like torsional stiffness and allowing for lighter spars. The designs that require no supports generally have much beefier spars to deal with the load as well as bracing between the front and rear spars to increase torsional stiffness.

[Chill31]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

 

If no wires were there the upper and the lower wing would not work as one structural member but as two separate ones, when it comes to taking the g-load. And given that height of the sturctural member factors in as cubic factor, you can imagine that these wires were pretty important. Say you have two 10cm high wings wired together as a perfect 1m high load bearing twin plane structure - if you lose the wires, you end up at less than 1% the strength of the wired construction.

 

Question is, did the wires really take these loads or were they just supports and if so, to what degree?

It depends on the aircraft.  For example, the Albatross series and SPAD have one continuous spar through the top wing.  Others, like the Camel, have segmented top wings, and the flying wires (as opposed to the landing wires) prevent the wings from folding up.  All of the wire braced aircraft derive some/most(?) of their strength from the wires.