Any interest in Naval 1?

[US41_Winslow]

I was thinking about forming a new historical squadron in Flying Circus based on Naval 1 and was wondering if anyone else is interested.

 

Why Naval 1?

The main reason for forming Naval 1 is that there are, to my knowledge, currently no active Camel or RNAS squadrons in Flying Circus.  Naval 1 also flew the Sopwith Triplane.

What will Naval 1 be like?

Naval 1 will focus on creating the most realistic experience possible in Flying Circus.  This means accurate formations and tactics will be used when possible and an emphasis will be placed on living rather than getting kills.  No comms will be used during flight.  Finally, As a pilot gains seniority in Naval 1, they will be promoted accordingly.

What do I need to join Naval 1?

Pilots of all experience levels are welcome to join if they are interested as long as they are willing to:

• Learn to fly the Camel and Triplane (when it is released)
• Respect other members of the squadron and comply with their flight and squadron leaders
• Be able to regularly fly on Thursday evenings

*I live on the West Coast of the U.S.A. so it will probably be most convenient for people in North America.

 

If you are interested, please respond below or send me a PM and I will try to get back to you as soon as possible.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Very much interested in seeing a RNAS outfit (just need to find blokes that might want to co-startup with me). However I am over in Europe so dunno that times are conductive with each other, the US3PG’s Thursday session tends to be too late for me for example.

 

Also my preference would be to have some voice comms during flight, unhistorical sure but it’s got to have an element of social interaction to it otherwise might as well just fly single player or not be in a group and just tag along with any random aircraft you see in server imho. The big events such as BS and BA would mean using voice comma also, assuming the unit would be involved. Also not so sure that using no comma works out in practice, if it did then surely some other units would do so also but as far as I know none in units FC atm do so?

Edited March 12, 2021 by Oliver88

[RNAS10_Oliver]

pro tip if you hastily write messages on your mobile phone while working in a warehouse there are going to be mistakes 

 

I tend to fly on the Flugpark server between 19:00 and 00:00 GMT and also am always on for the Sunday Flying Circus Furball. If you also tend to be available around those times (guessing just weekend if so, considering time differences) then maybe we should wing up and have a chat.

 

Does not probably come to the surprise of a few of those I've flown with on the Flugpark Discord or anyone that's downloaded the personal and historical RNAS skins that I've made, that 10 Squadron would be my pick to base upon. Their markings for the Camel are somewhat distinctive and recognisable (esp. after Christmas 1917) and provide the pilots some options for personalising their aircraft in the form of names/slogans above the flight letters and/or two-tone wheel designs while being relatively easy to skin each aircraft and remaining recognisable as a 10 Squadron aircraft. As opposed to say the almost anything goes personal markings of 3 Squadron. Interesting history (cough cough, mutiny, cough cough) also imho. Downside to them being used as a squadron I think is that (bar the flight lead and deputy flight lead) might not be too easy to identify each pilot apart when in the air and they only used Triplanes and Camels (formed in March 1917) so no Pups or Nieuports (once those arrive) to base some historically plausible skins upon. 

 

But meh I would be content with anything RNAS. So long as it's historical.

I would also consider a RNAS-as-a-squadron sort of setup, bringing more aircraft into use, and who were representing being dependant on the aircraft in use etc.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Oliver88

[US41_Winslow]

Unfortunately, as of now I am not able to fly on Sundays.  I thought about using Naval 10, but, to my knowledge, all their Camels looked relatively similar from a distance while Naval 1 used different letters for each airplane.  Finally, I did see not having comms as a bit of an issue but I do think we could make it work through things like waggling our wings and flares during the flight.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

3 hours ago, Miners said:

I thought about using Naval 10, but, to my knowledge, all their Camels looked relatively similar from a distance

 

Yeh agreed, that's indeed one disadvantage to them. The vertical bands are different on the flight leader and deputy flight leaders machines but otherwise it's just the wheel designs, serial numbers and slogan/names that differentiate them.

 

3 hours ago, Miners said:

while Naval 1 used different letters for each airplane.

 

As an off topic aside, Naval 1 are one of the squadrons that I've sort of struggled with finding reference photo's for skinning Camels. The only one of their Camel's that I've found so far (while RNAS not RAF) is this one shown below. If you (or anyone else reading this) know of some more photographs or etc of others from the squadron I would be very interested to see them! I have read in The Camel File about individual aircraft identities through white numbers/letters being used for 1 Squadron RNAS / 201 Squadron RAF but have suspected it might just be referring to the squadron post April Fools and even then it's not enough for me to base my historical skins on (need images).

 

 

3 hours ago, Miners said:

Finally, I did see not having comms as a bit of an issue but I do think we could make it work through things like waggling our wings and flares during the flight.

 

This is somewhat later than the period concerned, but check out pages 34 through 38 on THIS and pages 38 through 89 on THIS, they are from the 1938 Flying Training Manual AP129 and those pages gives some visual signals for various air drills, so might be some use. Interesting though checking it again I see that "about to attack" and "form line astern" are both visually signalled through rocking the aircraft fore and aft, and  "enemy in sight" and "close formation" are both signalled through rocking the aircraft latterly. ?

 

The preview for Naval Eight: A History of No.8 Squadron R.N.A.S. has some limited visual signalling mentioned in it also. On page 85 mentions turns to the right being signalled through rocking the aircraft, dropping the wing to the right and then commencing the turn. And on page 203 and 204 mentions rocking the aircraft latterly to call attention to something; if accompanied by waving an arm it calls attention to hostile aircraft, if followed by rocking the machine in a fore and aft direction means gun jam. Also mentions firing of green lights signalling an escort to lines required due to engine failure or any other reason and that if a subordinate wishes to communicate to the leader they have to get in front of him else do Chinese whispers (paraphrasing).

Edited March 12, 2021 by Oliver88

[US41_Winslow]

3 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

As an off topic aside, Naval 1 are one of the squadrons that I've sort of struggled with finding reference photo's for skinning Camels.

I found this on The Aerodrome.  http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57968  It gives a general overview of how Naval 1, and later 201 Squadron's Camels and Triplanes were marked but it doesn't have any photographs.

 

On visual signaling, I see the most useful commands being enemy in sight (rocking wings), dud engine (zig-zagging back and forth) and the washout signal (firing a red flare) since we don't have things like gun jams modelled.  The usefulness of commands indicating things like turns would vary based on how tight the formation is while the duplicated commands in the interwar period were due, I assume, to the need to communicate during aerobatics and such, which wouldn't be a factor in combat.  I got the commands described above from Arthur Gould Lee's memoirs and I don't know if they were the same between the RNAS and RFC.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Miners
Spelling

[No.23_Triggers]

20 hours ago, Miners said:

I thought about using Naval 10, but, to my knowledge, all their Camels looked relatively similar from a distance while Naval 1 used different letters for each airplane. 

 

17 hours ago, Oliver88 said:

Yeh agreed, that's indeed one disadvantage to them. The vertical bands are different on the flight leader and deputy flight leaders machines but otherwise it's just the wheel designs, serial numbers and slogan/names that differentiate them.

Just as a point of interest on this particular subject - The 3rd P.G. has individual numbers for each aircraft (marked on wings and fuselage), as well as different coloured numbers for each of the four Squadrons. C.O. Aircraft also have a tricolour band that runs diagonally up the fuselage for ID purposes. Typically, the numbers only come in useful before or after a fight, when everyone is forming up and trying to figure out who's who - but in combat the markings aren't very practical. 

In FC, typically we only really recognise our own pilots by the U.S. roundels, rather than any of the specific markings (especially when we're in a scrap). In terms of functionality when spotting wingmen, I'd say Naval 10 would probably be the better option. 

Just my 2 cents! 

As for individual markings of Naval 1: 

Triplanes:
- Earlier Triplanes were numbered serially with white numbers on the fuselage sides, just behind the roundel. 
- Later Triplanes had the roundel overpainted and replaced with a white individual number. Behind the number, two small vertical bars were painted in white. 
 

Camels:

- Squadron marking was one white vertical bar, painted behind the cockade. 
- Flights were marked with red wheel covers and fin for "A" flight, white wheels / fin for "B", blue wheels / fin for "C". 

- "A" flight aircraft were individually marked 'A' through to 'F', marked in white the red fin. 
- "B" flight aircraft were individually marked 'S' through to "W" in white beside the cockpit on the fuselage sides (and used 'Z' in place of 'X'). 
- "C" flight aircraft were individually marked '1' through '6' in the same manner as "B" Flight. 

Apparently the early Naval 1 Camels also used the late Triplane markings for a short period. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by US93_Larner

[US41_Winslow]

7 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

In FC, typically we only really recognise our own pilots by the U.S. roundels, rather than any of the specific markings (especially when we're in a scrap). In terms of functionality when spotting wingmen, I'd say Naval 10 would probably be the better option.

I see your point, but my experience is that the wings of the Camel hide markings on the forward fuselage when you aren't level with each other.  And, besides the flight leader and deputy leader, all the airplanes look relatively the same, which I imagine would confuse reforming the formation after a fight.
Thanks for the information on Naval 1's markings, Larner.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I will admit, a flight of camels flying together with similar paint is quite the sight (or any plane, really). The colored stripes on the nose work pretty well when forming up. Once combat breaks out, I find that I really appreciate the colored stripe and large letter I have on the upper and lower wings for my Bristol and SE5 skins. I may even go back and add them to my Camel skins. Roundels and crosses work for IFF pretty well, but I can easily pick out my brother from another Allied plane, even from a distance, due to the extra markings on the wing. Even if the specific letter/stripe/etc isn't strictly historical for the machine that provided inspiration for the basic scheme, other machines used similar markings, so I'm willing to accept "inspired by a real skin" and have fun with it. It's kinda like "inspired by a true story," but with an airplane.