New Book "Inside the Victories of Manfred von Richthofen" Now Available

[Barkhorn1x]

Cross posting for your reading pleasure.

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/48375-new-book-inside-victories-manfred-von-richthofen-now-availab/

[DD_Arthur]

New book? That thread is six years old and was necroed by a bot?

[Chill31]

It is an interesting book!

[No.23_Starling]

What are the myths that the books debunk? The Hawker fight is an interesting one. Lots of relatively new evidence (Leon Bennett) that Hawker’s engine had problems, and that he tried to bring the fight down low where the DH2 out performed the Albi, before trying to run when he realised it was hopeless and was shot fleeing.
 

I don’t ever remember the DH2 outperforming anything in RoF at any altitude.

 

There’s also kills which weren’t really kills. McCudden span down safely, and Neve (buried near my house) made it back home albeit with a burnt out plane.

 

Im still waiting for the book on Fonck which offers evidence that he was the real top scorer of WW1. Some estimates are 100+ kills.

Official claims in the region of 142.

I wonder if he’d been aristocratic and he’d flown a bright red triplane these books have been written about him. Already tons of books about MvR

Edited July 18, 2022 by US103_Rummell
Grammar

[BMA_Hellbender]

36 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

What are the myths that the books debunk? The Hawker fight is an interesting one. Lots of relatively new evidence (Leon Bennett) that Hawker’s engine had problems, and that he tried to bring the fight down low where the DH2 out performed the Albi, before trying to run when he realised it was hopeless and was shot fleeing.
 

I don’t ever remember the DH2 outperforming anything in RoF at any altitude.

 

I remember one RoF open beta where the DH.2 outturned both the Fokker Dr.I and Sopwith Pup. This was considered "OP" by the devs with regards to the other early war plane that was just released (or was about to be released, I don't remember exactly): the Fokker Eindecker. Funny, because the DH.2 was instrumental in ending the Fokker Scourge, and it remained a competitive machine even against the Albatros D.II; see MvR vs. Hawker.

 

Long story short: DH.2 was hit hard with the nerf stick, some excuse given about a long range variant with a larger/heavier fuel tank or somesuch, and became the worst plane in RoF's history, somehow being a worse turnfighter than the F.E.2b. Anyway, crazier things have happened, such as the Breguet 14 outturning the Nieuport 28. The End.

[No.23_Starling]

Funny you should say that. It matches Bennett’s analysis and others we have seen here before. That SE5a number makes me sad.

 

Imagine an Albi pilot having to use climb rate to energy fight. This is my biggest problem with the FMs in both RoF and FC - the myth of all German planes being turner vs all but the Camel.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

It matches Bennett’s analysis

Does he elaborate how he devises those turn radii? If was just a function of wing loading, then he could have saved himself a chart.

[No.23_Starling]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

Does he elaborate how he devises those turn radii? If was just a function of wing loading, then he could have saved himself a chart.

He’s an aerospace engineer and research scientist if you want to look him up. Worked at NYU then at the Ballistics Research Lab in MD. He doesn’t give the full computational breakdown but references his source (note 11 for the turn radii). As a professional aerospace engineer you’d expect him to use his professional methodology.

[No.23_Starling]

Either way, the DH2 turn performance is frequently praised in sources from the time but thought of as hopelessly slow and unable to climb with the Albis. I’d question his number on the FE2b though. The others look believable 

[BMA_Hellbender]

37 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Either way, the DH2 turn performance is frequently praised in sources from the time but thought of as hopelessly slow and unable to climb with the Albis. I’d question his number on the FE2b though. The others look believable 

 

There's nothing to question about the FE2b: it was an underpowered machine with a small turn radius and a decent enough turn rate. It was used as the earliest escort type during the Fokker Scourge and damn near turned the tide. The later FE2d variant with a 250hp Rolls-Royce served admirably until it was eventually replaced by the Bristol. In RoF it's not bad at all either, though it was still introduced as "Fokker Fodder", whereas that was certainly not the case. That would have been the B.E.2c and multiple Vickers pusher-types.

[Barkhorn1x]

On 7/17/2022 at 7:32 PM, DD_Arthur said:

New book? That thread is six years old and was necroed by a bot?

Bhahhaahaa...I did not notice!  Jokes on me I guess.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Barkhorn1x

[ST_Catchov]

12 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

That SE5a number makes me sad.

 

Cheer up lad. It's clearly theoretical nonsense from some space guy. 

 

What the heck is the JN-4?

 

 

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

What the heck is the JN-4?

The Curtiss Jenny. Probably the most iconic American WWI aircraft.

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Cheer up lad. It's clearly theoretical nonsense from some space guy. 

 

What the heck is the JN-4?

 

 

Not really. You read any pilot’s diary on the DH2 and they all agree it could turn better than the Albis, but outclassed anywhere but low on climb rate. The FM was a mile off in RoF.

 

Likewise, there’s nothing in the literature or calculations from people like him to suggest the SE5a turned like a brick and retained energy worse than a Long COVID patient.

[ST_Catchov]

22 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Curtiss Jenny. Probably the most iconic American WWI aircraft.

 

Thanks yes I realised that right after I posted. See, I was trying to think of a WW1 combat aeroplane like the others on the list. And I'm thinkin' she seems a strange addition when she was not involved in the WW1 battlefields but purely as a trainer in the far away US and Canada as far as I know. 

 

16 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Likewise, there’s nothing in the literature or calculations from people like him to suggest the SE5a turned like a brick and retained energy worse than a Long COVID patient.

 

I couldn't agree more Rummy. I could've worded my earlier post better I think or even better, understood what you meant in the first place lol.

 

[ST_Catchov]

Books are one thing but folk songs handed down through generations are another. The truth is out there if one searches for it.

 

 

[Ghost666]

Love that song

[JFM]

Hello all. 

 

Indeed, Inside the Victories of MvR is not new, but still I appreciate its mention. And Christmas will be here before we know it. ?

 

I will add to the discussion there is actually zero evidence that Hawker's engine ran poorly on the day he was shot down by MvR. The only person who could reveal that died. Yes, No. 24 Sqn DH2s suffered from many engine problems, including 5964 (which was not "Hawker's" personal mount; many pilots had flown that machine on various days, as Hawker had flown various other machines, when he did fly). In the No. 24 Sqn record books, there are numerous indications of engine problems with that machine on various sorties--but there are also sorties in which its engine ran fine. In his book Gunning for the Red Baron, pp 158, Bennett wrote, "Hawker was doomed not by lack of skill or even by his generally inferior aircraft but by a lemon rotary engine." But what nobody but me mentions is: if Hawker's engine was running so badly as to be a "lemon," how was he able to execute the low-altitude maneuvers nobody disputes he did? 

 

But, besides that speculation, respectfully, Bennett does not understand (or at least did not when he wrote the book) the full details of the fight with Hawker, because Hawker was doomed by a lack of skill. Or, more accurately, a lapse of skill. I.e., Hawker had lost situational awareness. For although Bennett and sundry other authors (including the ghost writer of MvR's own autobiography) have written that MvR baited Hawker et al to attack him from on high, he did not. On page 156 of the same book, Bennett claims: “Hawker stared downward [i.e., at Jasta 2 and MvR] at a seemingly perfect textbook opportunity. Of course, it could also be a trap. If so, he might detect trickery through sudden liveliness on the part of the bait, bursting into action just after his DH2 was committed. The bait’s best countermove was a turn to face his descending enemy, combined with a rush toward the enemy’s rear—the start of a classic pursuit circle. Hawker pondered—and dove. It was a trap…”

 

All of that is, respectfully but frankly, overly-dramatic fiction. The actuality of events—based on No. 24 Sqn Record Book, No. 24 Sqn combat reports, RFC Communique No. 64, the personal reports of Andrews and Saundby who flew with Hawker that day (the fourth pilot on that sortie, Crutch, who is never mentioned in other books, had already disengaged [engine problems] after an earlier engagement), and MvR’s combat report--is MvR and Jasta 2 were above No. 24 Squadron and thus the Germans were the aggressors, attacking No. 24 Sqn, and not the other way around, as is so often misreported. Hawker was NOT above Jasta 2 and gazing down on them, as Bennett wrote—because at the time, as reported by Andrews, Hawker was pursuing distant German two-seaters and did not see the German Albs approaching them from above. Andrews, flying with Hawker, saw them above but did not take evasive action because he didn't want to leave Hawker alone, who ostensibly was target fixated. I.e., he was focused on his pursuit of the distant two-seaters and never saw the Albatrosses diving on him. Unless, as I have written, you actually believe Hawker did see various German twin-gunned fighters diving on him from a height advantage but just ignored them and continued flying a more-or-less straight and level and predictable flightpath to pursue distant two-seaters. I don’t believe that; the man was not an idiot. So, from the very beginning, the evidence is irrefutable that Hawker was attacked and thereafter fighting on the defensive.

 

I believe the headwaters of the “Hawker attacked MvR” myth is MvR’s own autobiography because, as I’ve stated, it got some of the battle details wrong, too. That work—the original 1917 version, not the various English translations (e.g., The Red Battle Flyer) that are rife with error—is a mix of accurate depictions and errors/romanticized fiction. It is not “nothing but Nazi propaganda and lies” as is often claimed. I’ve compared many, many parts of that book against combat reports, both German and allied, photographs, personal anecdotes, etc., and have gleaned what is accurate and what isn’t. And as regards 23 November 1916, we know at least some of it isn’t. I don’t have a crystal ball to discern the reasons why. But for this discussion I will say MvR dictated the contents of that book to a stenographer in Germany some six months and 41 victories after the fight with Hawker. However, his combat report, written the very day of the event, says clearly, “I attacked together with 2 planes a Vickers one-seater…” That he "attacked" matches every account written by his No. 24 Sqn enemies, also written on the day of the event. The only reason they match is because that is the way it must have happened, as based on the eyewitnesses of the event. Being they were enemies and still had matching accounts corroborates them all the more.

Anyway. There’s some myths debunked. ?

[JFM]

Nobody asked, but I’ll bring up another persistent MvR myth that I debunked in the book Manfred von Richthofen: The Aircraft, Myths and Accomplishments of “The Red Baron” (from which I extrapolated the following): that Voss was fast approaching Richthofen’s total victory tally and would have surpassed it had he (Voss) not been killed. E.g.: “When Voss died, he was just 13 kills behind Richthofen.” The subtext within the phrase “…just 13 kills behind Richthofen” suggests that Voss’s overtaking of Richthofen’s record was a not-too-distant inevitability, yet the 13 kills Voss lacked were 27% of his 48 total victories—a margin considerably greater than “just.” The quickest Voss had ever accumulated 13 victories was during 22 days between 25 February and 18 March (victories 7-19, ten of which were part of five double-victories), and it is logical to conclude that had Voss lived beyond 23 September and continued “closing in” on Richthofen’s tally, Richthofen also would have been shooting down airplanes. That is, when he was not on leave—the comparisons usually ignore that Richthofen was away on leave when Voss shot down his last seven airplanes between 6-23 September.

 

As noted, these final seven victories brought Voss to within 13 planes of Richthofen’s tally, but a month-by-month comparison of each man’s score reveals this was the closest Voss had come to equaling Richthofen in over five months:

The three times Voss came closest to tying Richthofen were on 19 March, when Voss’s 20 victories pulled him within 8 of Richthofen’s 28 victories; 24 March, when Voss’s 22 pulled him within 8 of Richthofen’s 30; and 1 April, when Voss’s 23 victories pulled him within 8 of Richthofen’s 31. Ironically, the same month—during which Voss went on leave after winning the Orden Pour le Merite while Richthofen participated in “Bloody April”—also featured the largest gap between their respective tallies, when by month’s end Richthofen’s 52 victories gave him a 28-victory lead over Voss’s total of 24.  

 

Between the ends of May and August each pilot scored 7 victories, and throughout those four months Voss’s total trailed Richthofen’s by an average of 22 (ironically, each man’s tally averaged 68% of their respective ultimate total scores). Only in September did Voss manage to make headway toward closing the gap, but that month Richthofen was absent from the front lines 25 out of the 30 days. Additionally, he had been absent all 31 days in May, 17 days in June, and the 20 days in July he convalesced from the gunshot wound. 16 August saw Richthofen once again available for combat, yet poor weather and an ordered flight restriction after being wounded 6 July (the ignoring of which he occasionally justified) hampered his effectiveness, limiting him to two victories that month. Thus, during the remainder of 1917 Richthofen achieved only four additional victories, since most of the time he was away on leave, and it was not until spring 1918 that he once again caught his stride and shot down 17 planes throughout March and April. However, by then Voss had been dead since September, rendering moot any victory comparisons for this period. 

 

Another oft-seen Voss/Richthofen time frame comparison employs fact omission and egregious spin to proclaim: “During a twenty-day period in September 1917 Voss shot down ten enemy airplanes and still managed to squeeze in at least 11 days of leave. During the same period Richthofen shot down only two enemy planes.” It is accurate that between 3 September and 23 September Voss shot down ten airplanes—on two of those days he scored double-victories and on one day he scored a triple-victory—and within that time frame he was indeed away on leave 11 days. Also accurate is Richthofen’s two victory total that month. The anti-Richthofen spin resides in the exclusion to note that Richthofen had been ordered on four-week recuperative leave beginning 6 September which resulted in his absence for 25 out of that month’s 30 days. Therefore, while Richthofen shot down “only” two planes “in the same period,” he was available to do so just during the first five days of September.

 

Spin or no spin, why is Werner Voss the pilot most often compared with Richthofen? Three other pilots had victory scores matching or exceeding Voss’s 48, yet none are compared with Richthofen in the same manner as is Voss. Unquestionably part of the reason is because the epic tale of his final flight elevated Voss to legendary status never afforded the others, but most likely the strongest reason is because when Voss was KiA on 23 September 1917 these three men—Ernst Udet (Jasta 15), Erich Löwenhardt (Jasta 10) and Joseph Jacobs (Jasta 7)—had confirmed victory scores of 10, 5 and 8 respectively. None would come into his own until post-spring 1918, after Voss and Richthofen had been killed. Thus, in 1917, Voss was Richthofen’s concurrent scoring competitor.

 

Still, this “competition” was fleeting. As mentioned previously, Voss’s only real threat had been the occasions in March when he pulled within eight victories of Richthofen and had been the number two living ace by month’s end. He retained this monthly position through August, save for a third-place tie with Jasta Boelcke Oblt Fritz Bernert during April—a month in which Voss was on leave for 23 days and therefore unavailable to vie for the number two position. Yet this monthly number two position belies Voss’s waning post-March fighter pilot effectiveness, as compared to the precedent he established during the previous two months. During February and March—the period of Voss’s largest threat against Richthofen—his monthly victory tallies were 8 and 11 airplanes respectively, making him the top scoring fighter pilot of each month. However, after returning from leave in May—by which time his eight-plane threat had dissolved into Richthofen’s 28 plane domination—Voss had slipped from the monthly top scoring pilot down to third, and by June’s end had disappeared altogether from the top three monthly scorers, never to return.

 

Notwithstanding these dwindling monthly scores, he still followed Richthofen as the number two living ace each month—but he was a distant second, trailing Richthofen by an average of 22 victories through June, July, and August. Therefore, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that beyond the brief period in March, Voss’s status as Richthofen’s ubiquitous and strong scoring competitor can neither be supported nor justified and is inaccurate.  

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

Golly.

[Holtzauge]

@JFM: Fascinating story and an interesting comparison. Thanks for posting the table. I had no idea that Voss was racking up victories at such a pace. On the other hand maybe he was accomplishing this due to his very aggressive and risk taking modus operandi? At least his last epic fight against seven opponents suggests this: Who in his right mind and without a death wish would ever dream of singlehandedly taking on seven opponents? Maybe that was why he was adding victories so fast? He was taking enormous risks and it finally caught up with him on that fateful day the 23rd September 1917? It was just a matter of time before his number was up?

[J5_Adam]

I don't know why this came to mind.

[Chill31]

@JFM do you have any good references for memoirs of people who wrote about their aerial fights with MVR?

[Avimimus]

On 9/16/2022 at 3:16 PM, Holtzauge said:

At least his last epic fight against seven opponents suggests this: Who in his right mind and without a death wish would ever dream of singlehandedly taking on seven opponents?

 

He didn't have a choice. His opponents had an altitude/energy advantage and were flying aircraft that were 20% faster than his aircraft to begin with.

 

His best chance of survival was to use the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft and possibly beat off or intimidate some of the enemies through scoring hits on them. Against one airplane flown by an inexperienced pilot he could've outclimbed them possibly - but not against multiple experienced enemy pilots... even then the S.E.5a had a comparable climb rate a lot altitudes (just a few percent less). His best hope of survival would be to let the fight descend to the deck and then crash-land the aircraft and vacate it as quickly as possible.

[Holtzauge]

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

He didn't have a choice. His opponents had an altitude/energy advantage and were flying aircraft that were 20% faster than his aircraft to begin with.

 

His best chance of survival was to use the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft and possibly beat off or intimidate some of the enemies through scoring hits on them. Against one airplane flown by an inexperienced pilot he could've outclimbed them possibly - but not against multiple experienced enemy pilots... even then the S.E.5a had a comparable climb rate a lot altitudes (just a few percent less). His best hope of survival would be to let the fight descend to the deck and then crash-land the aircraft and vacate it as quickly as possible.

 

Yes, those are good points and maybe I should instead have said flying a plane like the Fokker Dr.I alone in an environment where you risked meeting faster planes in superior numbers was a death wish. More persons here that are better versed in tactics but IMHO the only time you can contemplate flying alone is if you have an aircraft that is faster than the opposition's, e.g. the SPAD XIII or S.E.5a. Doing so alone in a slow plane like the Dr.I seems suicidal.

[ST_Catchov]

16 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Against one airplane flown by an inexperienced pilot he could've outclimbed them possibly - but not against multiple experienced enemy pilots... even then the S.E.5a had a comparable climb rate a lot altitudes (just a few percent less).

 

You lie!

 

Oh I see, I'm sorry. You're talking about the real one.

[No.23_Starling]

Do you take out the kills which actually weren’t kills like McCudden? Also you should look into Fonck’s total. He was awarded 70 odd confirmed but claimed another 40. It’s possible he was the actual top scorer of WW1, and that the SPAD was a more survival platform than the slower Dr1

[ST_Catchov]

I have a theory. Richthofen celebrated each aerial victory with an engraved silver cup. As there were only 60 cups made he could only have had 60 victories. Alleged statements that this was because of a silver shortage in Germany is fake news.

 

This may not be entirely correct however.

[No.23_Starling]

7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I have a theory. Richthofen celebrated each aerial victory with an engraved silver cup. As there were only 60 cups made he could only have had 60 victories. Alleged statements that this was because of a silver shortage in Germany is fake news.

 

This may not be entirely correct however.

It’s not fake news though that Fonck’s total could well have been over 100 kills but it’s very rarely talked about, possibly because he wasn’t an aristocrat in a bright red triplane (arguably a poorer performing scout than the late war spads). 
 

Id would rather see a book about that than yet another book about MvR which ignores the kills which weren’t actually kills.

[ST_Catchov]

18 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

It’s not fake news though that Fonck’s total could well have been over 100 kills but it’s very rarely talked about, possibly because he wasn’t an aristocrat in a bright red triplane (arguably a poorer performing scout than the late war spads). 
 

Id would rather see a book about that than yet another book about MvR which ignores the kills which weren’t actually kills.

 

I understand Fonck, like MvR, was obsessed with his kill scores. They probably would have been great multiplayers and adept at disco's when necessary. I think Ball was much the same. You get fame and the chicks. Others merely wanted to survive. Kills were not important. Cecil Lewis comes to mind. 

 

And then there were the guys who wanted to keep squadron morale up by gifting noobs their kills at times. Guys (I think?) like McCudden or Mannock? They were the real leaders.

 

MvR himself comes across as a psycho to me.

[SeaW0lf]

On 9/24/2022 at 1:51 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Against one airplane flown by an inexperienced pilot he could've outclimbed them possibly - but not against multiple experienced enemy pilots... even then the S.E.5a had a comparable climb rate a lot altitudes (just a few percent less). 

 

Have you read High In the Empty Blue? Alex Revell is a library on the 56th Squadron and the SE5a and he met some of the 56th SQ pilots, befriending some of them if I'm not mistaken.

 

Having just described the departure of the red nosed Albatros (supposedly Carl Menckhoff), Grp Cpt. Geoffrey Hilton Bowman of the 56 Sqdn goes on: "This left Voss alone in the middle of six of us, which did not deter him in the slightest. At that altitude he had a much better rate of climb, or rather zoom, than we had and frequently he was the highest machine of the seven and could have turned east and got away had he wished to, but he was not that type and always came down on us again. (...) Our elation was not nearly as great as you might have imagined. Rhys-Davids, I think, was genuinely upset". [High in the Empty Blue' by Alex Revell]

 

This is not supposition, this is from a pilot that fought in that same fight. People can search and find out where lays the gray areas, since they were not in a simulation, but a kill or to be killed fight, but he was there. From what I recall, there were several squadrons around the fight at different levels just waiting to have a chance to kill him. So there were no escape route per se. You can ask Tomas Crean about it. He has study Voss and his squadron like anyone else as it seems.

 

I'm not sure about the SE5a flight model, but people should take things in perspective. I think all planes in one way or another were affected or changed (for worse or better depending on the characteristics) in Flying Circus, but unless a real study is made, these changes happened to all planes.

 

Ps: login off (lol).

[Zooropa_Fly]

Some here over-estimate the SE5, it was never as good in real life as in-game. Way over-modelled. 

[No.23_Starling]

10 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Some here over-estimate the SE5, it was never as good in real life as in-game. Way over-modelled. 

How much time do you spend in the se5 in MP? The FM we have has a poor zoom and energy retention (not to mention weak wings which make pulling up from a dive at any speed a gamble), loses energy like a sick grandma in a turn, and has giant paper spars. The top speed, when you reach it is great - as it was historically - and has a decent roll rate, but that’s about it.

 

If you want to energy fight in anything that keeps energy and doesn’t turn to confetti in seconds you fly the SPAD.

 

What is over modelled about our weird experimental se5 (see the old AnP RoF post explaining the FM they chose)?

[Zooropa_Fly]

?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

7 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

?

They are biting good at this time of the year.... ?

[Zooropa_Fly]

..and even better catching the one you expected to catch !

 

(Sorry Rummsy)

S!

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 9/28/2022 at 11:44 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

Some here over-estimate the SE5, it was never as good in real life as in-game. Way over-modelled. 

S.E.5.a was, esentially, short better rolling B.E.2 deriative attached to powerful engine. It was praised for high initial roll rate (called maneuverability), which people later went on to read as "sustained turn rate" because the two things are obviously the same. It was ideal plane for RFC pilots becasue it was simple to fly (fitting a B.E.2 deriative) and fast (fitting for plane built around strong engine), lending great survivability to inexperienced crews before they brough their training standards up.

She was also good gun platform (something we have modelled in game, but it's much less important becasue bad gun platforms like Camel are not modelled as such).

Viper S.E.5.a was pretty much what we have in game - the above reconfigured as Rumpler catcher, with prop and engine optimalisd for best ceiling and top horisontal speed at altitude, for long games of cat and mouse against German recons. With no Rumplers in game (or any decent German two-seater) FC S.E pilots try to repurpose this specialised interceptor as a superiority fighter, with predictable difficulties. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by J2_Trupobaw

[ST_Catchov]

Trupo, surely you can't be serious guy? Is good joke then and I like him with laughing and such. But when I stop it and take my breath away please to read Rummy's comments below. It is this that offends and needs him to fix. 

 

14 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

The FM we have has a poor zoom and energy retention (not to mention weak wings which make pulling up from a dive at any speed a gamble), loses energy like a sick grandma in a turn,

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Trupo, surely you can't be serious guy? Is good joke then and I like him with laughing and such. But when I stop it and take my breath away please to read Rummy's comments below. It is this that offends and needs him to fix. 

 

 

 

Trupobaw, St_Catchov is deliberately mocking your accent.  Did you catch it?  I think he’s trying to do Borat. ?

[No.23_Starling]

12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

S.E.5.a was, esentially, short better rolling B.E.2 deriative attached to powerful engine. It was praised for high initial roll rate (called maneuverability), which people later went on to read as "sustained turn rate" because the two things are obviously the same. It was ideal plane for RFC pilots becasue it was simple to fly (fitting a B.E.2 deriative) and fast (fitting for plane built around strong engine), lending great survivability to inexperienced crews before they brough their training standards up.

She was also good gun platform (something we have modelled in game, but it's much less important becasue bad gun platforms like Camel are not modelled as such).

Viper S.E.5.a was pretty much what we have in game - the above reconfigured as Rumpler catcher, with prop and engine optimalisd for best ceiling and top horisontal speed at altitude, for long games of cat and mouse against German recons. With no Rumplers in game (or any decent German two-seater) FC S.E pilots try to repurpose this specialised interceptor as a superiority fighter, with predictable difficulties. 

You should read AnP’s thread from Rise of Flight explaining the FM they built. They picked an experimental version which got the speed and climb right but botched the energy retention in compromise. 
 

The sustained turn piece is controversial when we look at both the data (modelled by various engineers) and anecdotes. Nobody is saying she should turn like a Dr1, it’s more that the Albi and DIII turn rates and full deflection abilities create a large gap in performance. Don’t need to revisit it here in detail, but many ppl think the Dva and Diii FMs are more the problem (sustain turn and energy too well but too slow and fragile) particularly given that the Dva was one of the first FMs 777 studios created. In RoF all the Albis could out turn the DH2 contrary to data and anecdote, including MvR who praised the Albi in climb, dive, and speed vs the pushers.