1916 entente two-seater appreciation thread (with some thoughts to Collector Planes/Premium Editions)

[Avimimus]

Why we needed slower 1916 observers:

 

Fighter aircraft were originally developed to hunt two-seat observation aircraft. However, they have to be able to catch them. In Flying Circus Vol.III/IV we will have several fighters that are slow enough they won’t have any two seaters for them to catch (i.e. Airco D.H.2, Nieuport 11, Fokker E.III, Halberstadt D.II). One can't have a 'Fokker Scourge' if the E.III and its opponents literally can't catch up with anything.

 

For historically accurate and gameplay - we will need slower two-seaters (<135 km/h)! While not part of the announced plans - such aircraft could come about a number of different ways:

- By Yugra media (As Collector Aircraft and/or as part of a post-release "Premium Edition" - similar to what happened with Tank Crew).

- By a new 3rd party developer might step in.

 

So there is at least some hope. In any case, it is interesting to discuss. What would be good choices (<135 km/h maximum speeds)?

 

Below I've included four interesting ones. Note: If there is popular demand - I might add a couple more (e.g. Nieuport 10 and Caudron R.4 come to mind) and do a similar presentation for the German options. There will also eventually probably be a poll of some sort.

 

 

Caudron G.4

 

Overview:

- Twin engined.

- Somewhat limited view for the pilot (gunner is in front, and engines limiting views to either side).

- One of the first twin engined combat aircraft, and the first French twin-engined aircraft (able to fly on one engine). Also used by British bomber squadrons (prior to receiving the Handley-Page).

- Single seat variants available (flown as a fighter).

 

Weapon loads:

- 110kg bomb load, and an option for Le Prieur rockets.

- Options for a fixed forward firing overwing gun controlled by the pilot, in addition to several arrangements of flexible machine guns. Note that the lateral field of fire (i.e. traverse) for the forward firing flexible gun was limited by the propellers.

- Extensively armoured ground attack versions, as well as a float plane modification and a single seat field modification possible (with two fixed forward firing guns).

 

Speed and performance:

- 132 km/h it can be caught by the Fokker E.III, making it useful as an AI aircraft.

- Could fly on one engine and was reportedly easy to fly and well liked.

 

Service:

- Approximately 1430 produced.

- Withdrawn over the fall of 1916, with the last daylight operations being conducted by the RNAS in February 1917 (It was the major British bomber until the Handley-Page O/100 arrived). The type was contemporaneous with the Fokker Eindecker (introduced around the same time) and had about six months of overlap with the Albatros and Haberstadt D.II fighters.

 

Relevance:

- Early twin engine design. French two-seater and bomber. It retains relevance into later parts of the war in Italy and Russia only (remained in Russian service into the 1920s).

- Confidence in the type can be seen in that, for at time, it was the only French type to be allowed to operate in daytime over enemy lines.

- Flown by René Fonck early in his combat career (and at least nine other aces). Julien Guertiau achieved 4-5 kills and Joseph Vuillemin reached 3-6 kills while flying this type. They were also used as top-cover protection for other French bombers.

 

Some armament variations:

Spoiler

 

Voisin VIII

 

Overview:

- Pusher design. The largest aircraft in this list and the most capable bomber.

- Excellent view for the pilot (pusher, with the gunner mounted behind the pilot and firing over them).

- Very durable (the first use of steel frames in a mass produced aircraft).

- It retains relevance as it continued in service as a night bomber until the end of the war.

 

Weapon loads:

- Bombload of 180kg is very good for the early war (230-250kg in overload).

- Cannon armed option (semi-flexible 37mm or 47mm), in addition to machine guns. Excellent forward field of fire for the flexibly mounted machine guns (if equipped).

- The upgraded version (Voisin X) could sometimes simultaneously carry both cannon and a smaller bomb-load (100kg). In some cases a defensive machine gun was also carried along with the cannon.

 

Speed and Performance:

- 115-130 km/h makes it easy for the Fokker E.III to catch (and even for German early war two-seaters to catch) .

- 135 km/h for the up-engined Voisin X capable of carrying 280kg of bombs.

- It could handle very sharp turns in spite of also being stable, giving it a reputation for manoeuvrability.

 

Service:

- At least 1100 Voisin VIII and 900 Voisin X produced. The earlier Voisin III had over 1350 produced (but is a significantly different design, but does push Voisin pusher numbers well over 3500).

- The Voisin VIII was introduced in November 1916, about a year after the Voisins were moved into a primarily night bombing role. It remained in service until the end of the war.

 

Relevance:

- It retains relevance even after 1917 as it continued in service as a night bomber and was even supplemented by the up-engined Voisin X version for this purpose.

- Albert Mezergues achieved three kills in a cannon armed Voisin.

- Note: The Voisin VIII and X entered service at a time when the majority of bombing raids were conducted at night. The earlier Voisin III/V was used more extensively during the daytime.

 

Video showing a Voisin V loading and firing its canon on the ground:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Morane-Saulnier L

 

Overview:

- Parasol monoplane design. The smallest aircraft in this list (2/3rds the size of the Caudron and B.E.2, and 1/3rd the weight of the Voisin VIII/X)!

- Good visibility (the single wing is mounted above the pilot).

- Used by both the Entente (France, Britain, Italy and Russia) and the Germans (license produced by Pfalz as the A.I/A.II two seater and the Pfalz E.III fighter)!

-Single seat fighter and two-seat observer/bomber versions were used by both sides.

 

Weapon loads:

- 100kg bomb load

- Options for fixed forward firing overwing Lewis, synchronised gun firing through through the propeller (German), or an unsynchronised gun firing through the propeller (with bullet deflector).

- A flexible defensive gun in the two seater version (with the gunner placed behind the pilot).

 

Speed and Performance:

- 115-125 km/h (up to 135-145 km/h for German Pfalz variants), this makes it easy for the Fokker E.III to catch, and for the Airco DH.2 (although this is more marginal as the up-engined German versions were relatively fast).

- Very responsive in pitch but relatively weak rudder and roll (improved in late versions by switching from wing warping to ailerons).

 

Service:

- 1000 produced (~600 for France)

- First used in the fighter role in March 1915. Predates the Fokker Eindecker and withdrawn around the same time as the Fokker Eindecker. Used by the RFC into the Somme Offensive (i.e. fall/winter of 1916) giving it about six months overlap with the Halberstadt D.II and four months overlap with the Albatros D.II. Note: German variants (Pfalz A.II/E.III) were withdrawn when these newer fighters were introduced.

 

Relevance:

- About 1000 produced (including 600 for France and 60 for Germany). Withdrawn relatively early, but used by Italy longer and by Russia as late as the 1920s. Notable in being the first fighter aircraft in history, the first aircraft to make a transalpine bombing raid and the first aircraft to destroy a Zeppelin.

- Flown by Guynemer. The highest scoring Morane-Saulnier "L" aces (Adolphe Pégoud and John Lynch) achieved 3-5 kills in this type (only one or two less kills than the highest scoring Morane-Saulnier "N" ace Eustace Grenfell)! This suggests it was almost as effective as the icon French 'equivalent' to the Fokker Eindecker.

 

 

 

Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c

 

 

Overview:

- Conventional design, but with the gunner in front of the pilot.

- Single seat conversions existed

 

Weapon loads:

- 44 kg bombload when flown as a two-seater, 102kg when flown as a single-seater. Also options for Le Prieur rockets.

- Options for fixed forward firing guns (overwing, oblique underwing or oblique sideways firing). Single seat variants also available.

- Options for armoured seats for use in low-level attacks.

 

Notes on armament:

- The gunner sat in the front seat. This led to a limited field of fire for the defensive guns, and several were often mounted to get a good field of fire (up to four mountings and up to two or three guns which could be shifted between them). In some cases flexible machine guns could be also be operated by the pilot as well as operated by the gunner/observer.

- A synchronised gun existed on the Belgian variants, although they carried different engines (making it almost as much effort as a B.E.12 or B.E.2e). This probably means that modelling a B.E.12 or B.E.2e would be a better choice if a synchronised gun was desired (since it would be a similar amount of work).

 

Speed and Performance:

- At 129 km/h it can be caught by the Fokker E.III, making it useful as an AI aircraft.

- Excessively stable.

 

Service:

- Approximately 1500 produced (increasing to 3500 if all other variants of the B.E.2 are included).

- Introduced around the same time as the Fokker Eindecker. Remained in service longer than the others due to a lack of alternatives, with some being withdrawn as late as May 1917. However, they were increasingly withdrawn from bombing roles in the fall of 1916 (Around the same time as the Morane-Saulnier L was withdrawn from RFC service).

 

Relevance:

- Massively produced and the major British victim of the 'Fokker Scourge'. The B.E.2c can simulate a number of related variants - the B.E.2d (different fuel tank) and some B.E.2c were equipped with the B.E.2e wings to produce B.E.2f/g variants.

- Downed several Zeppelins when repurposed as night-fighters.

 

Note: The B.E.2e reached speeds of 145km/h-155km/h making it too fast to be caught by the E.III and a difficult target for even the Halberstadt D.II - Hence why the slightly more primitive B.E.2c is favoured. Note: The single seat B.E.12 fighter with new engine, fuel tank, and revised tail fin reached 165 km/h (as fast as an Albatros D.II) but lacked manoeuvrability and was withdrawn to home-defense. They were used briefly in France though.

 

A note on why these specific aircraft versions were included:

Spoiler

The Voisin VIII/X was chosen over the earlier Voisin types (i.e. III & V) because it remained in service until the end of the war, carried a much larger bomb load, and had more commonality between bomber and cannon armed variants (making it easier to model both).  The VIII was already present in large numbers in 1916 (the earlier types were more important in 1915 and the X was a 1917 types). The Farman and Breguet pushers, while often good looking, had less armament diversity - so Voisin VIII is preferred as a representative of these ubiquitous French pusher types.

 

The Morane-Saulnier L is a bit of an odd choice, as it was already receding in importance when the 'Fokker Scourge' took place. It was present, but was more important in 1915. The reason why it was included is that it was in use in both single seat and two seat version by both sides during 1916 - so it is a good choice if only one aircraft could be added. The fact that it was the first fighter with a fixed forward firing armament, first aircraft to down a Zeppelin, and first aircraft to conduct a bombing raid across the alps probably helps too.

 

The Caudron G.4 was less numerous but is clearly considered very charismatic, fits the necessary requirement, and was also the first widely used twin engine type by France (giving France a twin-engined type to go with the Gotha and Handley-Page O/400). The Caudron G.6 is too fast. While the Caudron R.4 (and other A.3 class three-seat fighters) are quite interesting they are also less well known and do not have surviving examples.

 

The B.E.2e is potentially too fast, hence the choice of the B.E.2c over later variants. 

 

All of these aircraft also have representative examples still in existence:

- A Voisin VIII survives (as does a Voisin X nacelle)

- A B.E.2c survives (along with flying replicas)

- A Caudron G.4 survives

- Thulin D (Morane-Saulnier L licensed version) was rebuilt using original drawings and fuselage. A replica was also carefully built for the Guynemer pavilion museum at Poelkapelle.

 

[No.23_Starling]

Thoroughly agree, particularly the BE2c. The Eindeckers need their historical prey. You also need to add some more of the earlier central observation types, Aviatiks and the like. Trupo will probably have some great suggestions 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Would love to see those, for all that old crates my wallet is open. 

[Avimimus]

7 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Thoroughly agree, particularly the BE2c. The Eindeckers need their historical prey. You also need to add some more of the earlier central observation types, Aviatiks and the like. Trupo will probably have some great suggestions 

 

I look forward to it!

 

To be honest, I'd probably prefer one of the French types to the B.E.2c because we only have one French two-seater (if one accepts that the Sopwith Strutter we have is the British variant) whereas the U.K. has 6-7 multi-seat aircraft and Germany has 4-5... so France really deserves another aircraft - especially as they were the ones to pioneer strategic bombing and massed formations. So this would be a good chance to remedy that.

 

That said, I'd be very happy to see a B.E.2 (so long as it isn't one of the later versions that was fast enough to outrun the Fokker E.III anyway) and something will always feel like it is missing until one is made!  In a perfect world we'd get three 1916 two seaters (one for France, the U.K. and Germany). Anyway, that is my bias.

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Would love to see those, for all that old crates my wallet is open. 

 

I very much agree. Even if we don't get them - it is still fun to discuss and think about. They are very interesting designs (and it was interesting to discover that most had single-seat bomber and even fighter versions).

[Dusty926]

Considering the precedent they've set now with being willing to go and actually make brand new WW1 aircraft again, I'm really hoping that any one of these come to light. Like you said, the Eindecker needs its historical prey, and there's really quite the appeal to flying less sturdy and defensible aircraft. Evident by how popular the Ju-52 AND the C-47 are.

My admittedly long hope is that they will include some sort of new, earlier scout for at least one of the sides come Flying Circus Vol. 4. But at the very least, I hope they get the message that there's money in making more WW1 aircraft for FC.

[Wardog5711]

At OP request, this has been moved back to the General section.

 

[ST_Catchov]

I think you have put considerable thought into your choices @Avimimus and not only that, for the pics are excellent along with your brief synopsis of each crate. I agree with all your choices because each one is fab in their own way. I like them all! I want them all! Devs, just do it!

 

I'm sure there will be other suggestions as this thread progresses, but as a starting point, it is a fine starting point.

[Avimimus]

20 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

 I like them all! I want them all! Devs, just do it!

 

Be careful - you'll get this thread moved back to the 'suggestions' section!  

 

Honestly, there is a little bit of a suggestion in it - but that isn't really the purpose of this thread. It was intended more as an appreciation of the diversity of 1916 (and the first half of 1917) and to inspire the imagination of people who will be flying the Fokker E.III, Halberstadt, Airco D.H.2 and Nieuport 11 in Flying Circus Vol. III and IV.
 

A while ago I did a "What other aircraft were present in these theatres?" thread in the Great Battles section - and it was a lot of fun. It was also interesting, as it showed how relatively complete a lot of the modules are.

 

Anyway - if anyone has a suggestion for an aircraft to research and add for discussion/appreciation/imagining shooting down - do let me know.

 

25 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

I think you have put considerable thought into your choices @Avimimus and not only that, for the pics are excellent along with your brief synopsis of each crate.

 

Thank you! These types of threads take a lot of work to create - so I'm glad to hear when someone else enjoys it. I find it pretty fascinating to put together. I was particularly surprised at how many of these 1916 designs were used as fighters!

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I've been playing with the new Aerial Recon, Photo Recon, and Artillery Spotting missions, and they really give the two-seaters something fun to do other than bombing! I can easily see planes like the RE-8 doing artillery spotting at the front lines even into late 1918, and carefully retreating when the enemy gets close. The same can be true in 1917 (and even 1916) with earlier two-seaters like those listed here. I'd also hazard to say that Central needs a 1918 recon two-seater, since the DFW is older and the CL2 is a ground attack plane.

[ST_Catchov]

6 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

These types of threads take a lot of work to create - so I'm glad to hear when someone else enjoys it.

 

Yeah you said a few days ago you were gonna start this thread .... the days passed and I thought to meself what's takin' this Canuck so long? ? Doesn't he know it's a subject dear to my heart. The old crates. I just love 'em.

 

Anyway, now I know. Good job.

[No.23_Starling]

Essential German kites for me are the Aviatik and Albatros CIV (and later types), then the Rumpler CIV and mighty CVII for 20k feet recon where only the higher compression Hispano planes can reach her (Dolphin and Se5 8Bc variants - not Viper).

 

Aviatik - prey for DH2s and Nieuports

 

Albatros C Series (IV depicted)

 

Rumpler IV and VII spaceship

 

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Essential German kites for me are the Aviatik and Albatros CIV (and later types), then the Rumpler CIV and mighty CVII for 20k feet recon where only the higher compression Hispano planes can reach her (Dolphin and Se5 8Bc variants - not Viper).

 

Nice pictures!  Just a note - if we keep to the original premise of this thread - the slower two-seaters which were easier to intercept, some of these definitely don't fit. The Rumpler C.IV (171 km/h), C.VIII (175 km/h), and even the C.I (152 km/h) are all too fast to be intercepted by the aircraft available prior to late 1917 (even setting aside the altitude). Even the Aviatik C.I is a bit too fast for this thread (142 km/h)! That said it would be fun to create a similar thread for mid-to-late war German two-seaters. P.S. I've sent you a direct message asking for your thoughts.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Avimimus

[Guest deleted@219798]

64 of these German AGO CI pushers. I'd like to think that there will be planes like the Morane Parasol or the Morane N Bullet, but I suppose sadly it come down to bucks. as much as we might love the old kites the developers love what will turn a buck.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, kestrel444x500 said:

64 of these German AGO CI pushers. I'd like to think that there will be planes like the Morane Parasol or the Morane N Bullet, but I suppose sadly it come down to bucks. as much as we might love the old kites the developers love what will turn a buck.

 

Yeah, that is why I included the initial paragraph in this thread... in response to the inevitable cries of 'Why tempt us with something we can never have?' By the way, I recall really liking the AGO C.I - although I thought I was the only one. It'd be interesting as a way of allowing pusher vs. pusher duels... although I gather they weren't numerous.

 

  

16 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Yeah you said a few days ago you were gonna start this thread .... the days passed and I thought to meself what's takin' this Canuck so long? ? Doesn't he know it's a subject dear to my heart. The old crates. I just love 'em.

 

Anyway, now I know. Good job.

 

Yeah, I recalled making that promise. It took me a while to dig up my notes and find appropriate pictures - I wanted to be fair to each of the aircraft and make it interesting if we were going to have a chat.

 

I think people tend to gravitate to whatever was fastest (especially when we are younger) - always 1945/1918 (if not 1946/1919). But the earlier parts of these wars are often really interesting for the pace of technical innovation and the radically different forms of air-combat. I suspect that the lower power-to-weight ratios would make combat feel quite different (say, between a single seat Caudron G.IV and a Fokker E.I), different manoeuvres, different firing ranges etc.

[Guest deleted@219798]

It would be good if start date of Flying Circus pushed back to earlier than RoF, say mid 1916 or even the start of 1616. September 1916, the Fokker Scourge was over. I think the Fokker EIII was really only included in RoF because it was so well known. At that time it was obsolete and very few in frontline service. The Halberstadt DIII was a far better plane.

[J2_Trupobaw]

The early Jastas were equipped with whatever was available, including Eindeckers (Jasta 5 at least). It took a month or two for Albatros and Halberstadt biplanes to fully replace them.

 

With most KEK/Fokkerstaffelnn being deployed in Verdun area prior to September 1917, creation of Jastas led to resurgence of Eindeckers on British front at exactly that time.

[No.23_Starling]

36 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The early Jastas were equipped with whatever was available, including Eindeckers (Jasta 5 at least). It took a month or two for Albatros and Halberstadt biplanes to fully replace them.

 

With most KEK/Fokkerstaffelnn being deployed in Verdun area prior to September 1917, creation of Jastas led to resurgence of Eindeckers on British front at exactly that time.

Herr Trup, what are your suggestions for German 2 seaters? I love the Aviatik and Rumpler series but would welcome your ideas on the most common types from 1916 onwards, plus those that would make sense from a balancing perspective 

[US103_Baer]

On 4/10/2023 at 12:35 AM, Avimimus said:

Why we needed slower 1916 observers:

 

Fighter aircraft were originally developed to hunt two-seat observation aircraft. However, they have to be able to catch them. In Flying Circus Vol.III/IV we will have several fighters that are slow enough they won’t have any two seaters for them to catch (i.e. Airco D.H.2, Nieuport 11, Fokker E.III, Halberstadt D.II). One can't have a 'Fokker Scourge' if the E.III and its opponents literally can't catch up with anything.

 

For historically accurate and gameplay - we will need slower two-seaters (<135 km/h)! While not part of the announced plans - such aircraft could come about a number of different ways:

- By Yugra media (As Collector Aircraft and/or as part of a post-release "Premium Edition" - similar to what happened with Tank Crew).

- By a new 3rd party developer might step in.

 

So there is at least some hope. In any case, it is interesting to discuss. What would be good choices (<135 km/h maximum speeds)?

 

Below I've included four interesting ones. Note: If there is popular demand - I might add a couple more (e.g. Nieuport 10 and Caudron R.4 come to mind) and do a similar presentation for the German options. There will also eventually probably be a poll of some sort.

 

 

Caudron G.4

 

Overview:

- Twin engined.

- Somewhat limited view for the pilot (gunner is in front, and engines limit views to the side)

- One of the first twin engined combat aircraft, and the first French twin-engined aircraft (able to fly on one engine). Also used by British bomber squadrons (prior to receiving the Handley-Page).

- Single seat variants available (flown as a fighter).

 

Weapon loads:

- 110kg bomb load, and an option for Le Prieur rockets.

- Options for a fixed forward firing overwing gun controlled by the pilot, in addition to several arrangements of flexible machine guns.

- Extensively armoured ground attack versions, as well as a float plane modification and a single seat field modification possible (with two fixed forward firing guns).

 

Speed and performance:

- 132 km/h it can be caught by the Fokker E.III, making it useful as an AI aircraft.

- Could fly on one engine and was reportedly easy to fly and well liked.

 

Relevance:

- Produced in large number - early twin engine design. It retains relevance into later parts of the war in Italy and Russia only (remained in Russian service into the 1920s).

- Flown by René Fonck early in his combat career (and at least nine other aces). Julien Guertiau achieved 4-5 kills and Joseph Vuillemin reached 3-6 kills while flying this type. They were also used as top-cover protection for other French bombers.

 

Voisin VIII

 

Overview:

- Pusher design. The largest aircraft in this list and the most capable bomber.

- Excellent view for the pilot (pusher, with the gunner mounted behind the pilot and firing over them).

- Very durable (the first use of steel frames in a mass produced aircraft).

- It retains relevance after 1917 as it continued in service as a night bomber.

 

Weapon loads:

- Bombload of 180kg is very good for the early war (230-250kg in overload).

- Cannon armed option (semi-flexible 37mm or 47mm), in addition to machine guns.

- The upgraded version (Voisin X) could sometimes simultaneously carry both cannon and a smaller bomb-load (100kg). In some cases a defensive machine gun was also carried along with the cannon.

 

Speed and Performance:

- 115-130 km/h makes it easy for the Fokker E.III to catch (and even for German early war two-seaters to catch) .

- 135 km/h for the up-engined Voisin X capable of carrying 280kg of bombs.

- It could handle very sharp turns in spite of also being stable, giving it a reputation for manoeuvrability.

 

Relevance:

- One of the most produced types of the war (more numerous than the Caudron G.4). At least 1100 Voisin VIII and 900 Voisin X produced. The earlier Voisin III had over 1350 produced (but is a significantly different design, but does push Voisin pusher numbers well over 3000).

- It retains relevance even after 1917 as it continued in service as a night bomber and was even supplemented by the up-engined Voisin X version for this purpose.

- Albert Mezergues achieved three kills in a cannon armed Voisin

 

 

Morane-Saulnier L

 

Overview:

- Parasol monoplane design. The smallest aircraft in this list (2/3rds the size of the Caudron and B.E.2, and 1/3rd the weight of the Voisin VIII/X)!

- Good visibility (the single wing is mounted above the pilot).

- Used by both the Entente (France, Britain, Italy and Russia) and the Germans (license produced by Pfalz as the A.I/A.II two seater and the Pfalz E.III fighter)!

-Single seat fighter and two-seat observer/bomber versions were used by both sides.

 

Weapon loads:

- 100kg bomb load

- Options for fixed forward firing overwing Lewis, synchronised gun firing through through the propeller (German), or an unsynchronised gun firing through the propeller (with bullet deflector).

- A flexible defensive gun in the two seater version (with the gunner placed behind the pilot).

 

Speed and Performance:

- 115-125 km/h (up to 135-145 km/h for German Pfalz variants), this makes it easy for the Fokker E.III to catch, and for the Airco DH.2 (although this is more marginal as the up-engined German versions were relatively fast).

- Very responsive in pitch but relatively weak rudder and roll (improved in late versions by switching from wing warping to ailerons).

 

Relevance:

- About 1000 produced (including 600 for France and 60 for Germany). Withdrawn relatively early, but used by Italy longer and by Russia as late as the 1920s. Notable in being the first fighter aircraft in history, the first aircraft to make a transalpine bombing raid and the first aircraft to destroy a Zeppelin.

- Flown by Guynemer. The highest scoring Morane-Saulnier "L" aces (Adolphe Pégoud and John Lynch) achieved 3-5 kills in this type (only one or two less kills than the highest scoring Morane-Saulnier "N" ace Eustace Grenfell)! This suggests it was almost as effective as the icon French 'equivalent' to the Fokker Eindecker.

 

 

 

Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2c

 

 

Overview:

- Conventional design, but with the gunner in front of the pilot.

- Single seat conversions existed

 

Weapon loads:

- 44 kg bombload when flown as a two-seater, 102kg when flown as a single-seater. Also options for Le Prieur rockets.

- Options for fixed forward firing guns (overwing, oblique underwing or oblique sideways firing). Single seat variants also available.

- Options for armoured seats for use in low-level attacks.

 

Notes on armament:

- The gunner sat in the front seat. This led to a limited field of fire for the defensive guns, and several were often mounted to get a good field of fire (up to four mountings and up to two or three guns which could be shifted between them). In some cases flexible machine guns could be also be operated by the pilot as well as operated by the gunner/observer.

- A synchronised gun existed on the Belgian variants, although they carried different engines (making it almost as much effort as a B.E.12 or B.E.2e). This probably means that modelling a B.E.12 or B.E.2e would be a better choice if a synchronised gun was desired (since it would be a similar amount of work).

 

Speed and Performance:

- At 129 km/h it can be caught by the Fokker E.III, making it useful as an AI aircraft.

- Excessively stable.

 

Relevance:

- Massively produced and the major British victim of the 'Fokker Scourge'. 

- Downed Zeppelins when repurposed as night-fighters.

 

Note: The B.E.2e reached speeds of 145km/h-155km/h making it too fast to be caught by the E.III and a difficult target for even the Halberstadt D.II - Hence why the slightly more primitive B.E.2c is favoured. Note: The single seat B.E.12 fighter with new engine, fuel tank, and revised tail fin reached 165 km/h (as fast as an Albatros D.II) but lacked manoeuvrability and was withdrawn to home-defense. They were used briefly in France though.

 

A note on why these specific aircraft versions were included:

  Hide contents

The Voisin VIII/X was chosen over the earlier Voisin types (i.e. III & V) because it remained in service until the end of the war, carried a much larger bomb load, and had more commonality between bomber and cannon armed variants (making it easier to model both).  The VIII was already present in large numbers in 1916 (the earlier types were more important in 1915 and the X was a 1917 types). The Farman and Breguet pushers, while often good looking, had less armament diversity - so Voisin VIII is preferred as a representative of these ubiquitous French pusher types.

 

The Morane-Saulnier L is a bit of an odd choice, as it was already receding in importance when the 'Fokker Scourge' took place. It was present, but was more important in 1915. The reason why it was included is that it was in use in both single seat and two seat version by both sides during 1916 - so it is a good choice if only one aircraft could be added. The fact that it was the first fighter with a fixed forward firing armament, first aircraft to down a Zeppelin, and first aircraft to conduct a bombing raid across the alps probably helps too.

 

The Caudron G.4 was less numerous but is clearly considered very charismatic, fits the necessary requirement, and was also the first widely used twin engine type by France (giving France a twin-engined type to go with the Gotha and Handley-Page O/400). The Caudron G.6 is too fast. While the Caudron R.4 (and other A.3 class three-seat fighters) are quite interesting they are also less well known and do not have surviving examples.

 

The B.E.2e is potentially too fast, hence the choice of the B.E.2c over later variants. 

 

All of these aircraft also have representative examples still in existence:

- A Voisin VIII survives (as does a Voisin X nacelle)

- A B.E.2c survives (along with flying replicas)

- A Caudron G.4 survives

- Thulin D (Morane-Saulnier L licensed version) was rebuilt using original drawings and fuselage. A replica was also carefully built for the Guynemer pavilion museum at Poelkapelle.

 

Very good list. 

Can I suggest that you guys make sure to include the numbers produced and period of front line operations with every aircraft recommendation. 

Cheers

[J2_Trupobaw]

4 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Herr Trup, what are your suggestions for German 2 seaters? I love the Aviatik and Rumpler series but would welcome your ideas on the most common types from 1916 onwards, plus those that would make sense from a balancing perspective 

My rule of thumb for these "prey" planes is always - check the kill lists of notorious aces and squadrons when identified. Roland D.II, for instance, is unquestionably important part of 1916 air combat beause Albert Ball downed so may of them. I would go for early kill lists of No.24 Squadron to see what D.H.2s were they commonly encoundering and downing. Likewise, for Entente planes I would go through kills of Immelmann, Boelcke, Parschau etc and look for recurring type (it will most likely be B.E.2). It will not be 100% representative, but it will give us two seaters these fighters were able to defeat, which I believe is the point. And it will avoid all kinds of type favourism, going clealy for creating a working fighter / twoseater enviroment) 

Andrews seems to have been running into plenty of Albatrosen C, for instance.
https://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/andrews.php

Edited April 11, 2023 by J2_Trupobaw

[jeanba]

The G4 is one of the funniest plane to fly in WOFF and did a high variety of missions.

Note that the kill ratio between the G4 and the Fokker E was around 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Fokker of course.

You can add the Farman F40, but it is much less charismatic.

 

The Voisin were mostly used at night

 

[Avimimus]

 

 

 

On 4/11/2023 at 11:00 AM, jeanba said:

The G4 is one of the funniest plane to fly in WOFF and did a high variety of missions.

Note that the kill ratio between the G4 and the Fokker E was around 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Fokker of course.

You can add the Farman F40, but it is much less charismatic.

 

The Voisin were mostly used at night

 

 

Very interesting!

 

Honestly, I find the Farman F.40 to be more charismatic! But I'm a Canadian, and the late fuselauge design looks like a flying canoe suspended between the wings. We also have a 'chasse-galerie' story about voyageurs making a deal with the devil to allow their cargo canoe to fly back to Montreal for New Years. Preferences differ, but I'm leaning towards it being the pretties of the French pushers.

 

I'm honestly a bit unsure how to handle the French pushers. The sim will have the F.E.2b as a representative of the early two-seat pusher types. However, France produced somewhere in the vicinity of 5000 of these bombers during the war and one feels like they are worth representing. The question is how to do that.

 

It does appear that the Voisins were withdrawn from daylight raids in November 1915 - which means that the latest Voisins which would routinely be flown in the daylight would be the Voisin V (a type that would be withdrawn completely in 1916). I found it quite interesting that France seems to actually have increased production of pushers later in the war and introduced new types. They must have been deemed quite effective at night.

 

I think it would be a bit overwhelming for most readers to be presented with four or five types of French pushers.

 

Anyone have thoughts? Should I include multiple types of French pushers? Keep the Voisin VIII or replace it with the earlier Voisin V?

 

P.S. That said the Bréguet Br.5 is also interesting in its own way!

 

 

On 4/11/2023 at 10:19 AM, US103_Baer said:

Very good list. 

Can I suggest that you guys make sure to include the numbers produced and period of front line operations with every aircraft recommendation. 

Cheers

 

I was actually going to comment about how this is being an issue! It is always a bit more difficult, I find, to get such information for French aircraft. I'll look up what I can and update it.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Avimimus

[Avimimus]

 

 

  

On 4/11/2023 at 10:55 AM, J2_Trupobaw said:

My rule of thumb for these "prey" planes is always - check the kill lists of notorious aces and squadrons when identified. Roland D.II, for instance, is unquestionably important part of 1916 air combat beause Albert Ball downed so may of them. I would go for early kill lists of No.24 Squadron to see what D.H.2s were they commonly encoundering and downing. Likewise, for Entente planes I would go through kills of Immelmann, Boelcke, Parschau etc and look for recurring type (it will most likely be B.E.2). It will not be 100% representative, but it will give us two seaters these fighters were able to defeat, which I believe is the point. And it will avoid all kinds of type favourism, going clealy for creating a working fighter / twoseater enviroment) 

Andrews seems to have been running into plenty of Albatrosen C, for instance.
https://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/andrews.php

 

These lists are quite useful! It is worth noting that these lists only represent what pilots thought they were shooting down. Types are often misidentified in combat (e.g. reports of He 100/112 being shot down in WWII). So they require a bit of caution in interpretation.

 

For Boelcke the breakdown is interesting the B.E.2 is well represented, but he is shooting down just as many French pushers and almost as many British pushers:

Spoiler

French origin designs:

6 - French pusher (Farman or Voisin)

4 - Nieuports (one is a Nieuport 12)

 - Morane (at least one or two of which were Morane-Saulnier L).
2 - Caudron G.4

 

British origin designs:

6 - B.E.2  (including one B.E.12)
5 - F.E.2 pusher

4 - Sopwith Strutter

1 - R.E.7 
1 - Martinsyde G.10 bomber

 

Unknown:

2 - French
1 - Scout (Bristol?)

 

Interestingly, he is repeatedly shooting down French two-seater pushers in March 1916... which might suggest they were still being used for daylight operations? Seemingly contradicting Kondratiev's claim they were withdrawn over a year earlier?

[US103_Baer]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

For Boelcke the breakdown is interesting the B.E.2 is well represented, but he is shooting down just as many French pushers and almost as many British pushers:

  Reveal hidden contents

French origin designs:

6 - French pusher (Farman or Voisin)

4 - Nieuports (one is a Nieuport 12)

 - Morane (at least one or two of which were Morane-Saulnier L).
2 - Caudron G.4

 

British origin designs:

6 - B.E.2  (including one B.E.12)
5 - F.E.2 pusher

4 - Sopwith Strutter

1 - R.E.7 
1 - Martinsyde G.10 bomber

 

Unknown:

2 - French
1 - Scout (Bristol?)

 

Interestingly, he is repeatedly shooting down French two-seater pushers in March 1916... which might suggest they were still being used for daylight operations? Seemingly contradicting Kondratiev's claim they were withdrawn over a year earlier?

 

I think he was posted to Verdun front at that time ( 1H 1916) . After that theres a gap in his victories where he famously toured around and set up jasta 2 at Betincourt(?) on a British front.

 

The implication for us is that we need to take context into account when using the 'ace victory' model. 

 

Anyway,  the practical difficulty is convincing devs that new early war biplace machines would be a worthwhile endeavour commercially.  Thus the most iconic aircraft, that are usable across a wide time period and variety of mission types would seem the best - hence, my comment on tracking numbers built and period of service where possible. 

The Be2c/d fits all that criteria well, even if interesting cases can be made for Moranes, Caudron and Voisin on the French and some British fronts. On the Central side I don't really know but am sure we could narrow it down pretty quick. 

 

For sure a couple of early biplace machines would bring great value to the sim. Especially with the 3 new Recon mechanics. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by US103_Baer

[ZachariasX]

It would help if the early bombers/recon would be just AI and they really should be seen as „part of the map“. It‘s those planes (or their presence) that create basic game play in any historical sense. But selling aircraft that are either awkward to control or have terrible flight performances (or both) are probably a limited sale. I don‘t think they justify the same effort as the few planes that are indeed flown in a very competitive manner.

 

I think it is a general issue with FC that there are no AI planes to populate maps to generate a real scenario. Nobody cares if there are fighters flying over the front. Just let them fly. Unless you are just interesting in hunting and take the war as pretext of personal gratification.

 

The recon/bomber planes could even have an exremely coarse FM, vaguely reflecting historic climb and level speeds, and they should be CPU friendly items. I rather have twelve drones with a somewhat correct FM than one with a precise somewhat correct FM. (Good look finding good flight performance data on these kites!) And that should make them budget friendly as well. The choice should really be between a single flyable or a dozen AI. Besides, „the other sim“ proves that simplified FMs are accepted by most when it comes to AI controlled planes. As for fighters, I have my reservations about that, but for bomers and recon, it is certainly a proposition as it comes with a great many upsides.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I would love a Salmson 2 A.2. It was a 1917 plane designed in 1916 and it served primarily with french and USAS squadrons. There were roughly 4000 build. The french used it heavily for photo recons but there was also an armored version of it for ground attack.

Edited April 15, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[J2_Trupobaw]

7 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

I think he was posted to Verdun front at that time ( 1H 1916) . After that theres a gap in his victories where he famously toured around and set up jasta 2 at Betincourt(?) on a British front.

 

The implication for us is that we need to take context into account when using the 'ace victory' model. 

 

He was stationed at Verdun (Sivry to be precise) in spring 1916. Then he was sent on forced leave after death of Immelman; he used that time to lobby for creation of Jastas and hand-pick pilots for his personal command. 

 

As of the use of two seat pushers by French... iIRC ther were stuck with them until they Sopwith Strutter became available. The French plane development was perculiar and politicised; the aviation was hostage if two influential Army factions, artillery who IIRC wanted focus on army cooperation planes and engineers who wanted focus on bombing. As both factions gained and lost influence the goals of aviation were moved back and forth. Unfortunately, one thing that both sides agreed on was that combat planes should be flying battleships, big, durable and heavily armed, able to shrug off damage and fight off smaller planes while bombing or coreecting artillery fire. This led to designs like Cauldron gaining much prominence. Even when it became obvious that "flying battleships" are in fact easy targets for smaller, more maneuvrable single seaters, the powers that be bowed to reality only reculantly. It is very ironic that, when asked to, French industry was easily able to create top tier combat planes - Nieuports, Spads, Breguet, Salmson - and French air service produced excellent pilots to use them in tactically sound manner. But for higher ups these planes and tactics were only stop gap measures, to be used until the "proper" battle plane is available. As soon as imediate pressure of war was over the French went back to the flying battleship fixation, and kept developing along these lines until 1930s; only after wake up calls of Spanish civil war and creation of Luftwaffe they abandoned the idea. This was largely responsible for Armee de l'air lack of equipment preparedness in 1940 - much like in 1916, they were stuck with wrong kind of plane for to long and had to change paradigms on the fly.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

How many people bought the AA trucks? How many people actually use them regularly in Tank Crew? How many people bought the C-47, JU-52, or the U-2VS? How often are they flown in WW2 by players? I don't fly WW2, but I don't think those get used nearly as often as other planes. They still got made and people still buy them, and now everyone can take advantage of them and use them as player or AI in SP or MP. The same would be true for a BE2 or an Aviatik or similar: some people would buy them, fewer people would fly them, but everyone in both SP and MP would be able to benefit from having these early planes as prey items or objects to protect or a very vulnerable plane to fly on risky but important missions to win the war. The 2-seat missions, while they need a bit of refinement, would make it so even an unarmed plane would not be boring to fly, just as supply drops and paratrooper drops add something for the C-47 players. I am certainly enjoying them despite the flaws I see with them so far.

[jeanba]

21 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

 

 

V

 

It does appear that the Voisins were withdrawn from daylight raids in November 1915 - which means that the latest Voisins which would routinely be flown in the daylight would be the Voisin V (a type that would be withdrawn completely in 1916). I found it quite interesting that France seems to actually have increased production of pushers later in the war and introduced new types. They must have been deemed quite effective at night.

 

 

The Voisin was a very good platform for night flying : stable, reliable, easy to land or takeoff.

Its main weakness was poor performances, but oppositionwas expected (and prooved) to be low at night. The 37 mm variant was actually mainly sued for ground attack.

Voisin VIIi carried around 180 kg of bombs and Voisin X around 300, this is not very large, but the French were able to send around 60 planes per night for long period of times, which compensated for those weaknesses.

Note that some pilots performed 3 or more missions per night

 

So the Voisincan be rated as a good plane in its role, though clearly overspecialized.

 

[Avimimus]

13 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Anyway,  the practical difficulty is convincing devs that new early war biplace machines would be a worthwhile endeavour commercially.  Thus the most iconic aircraft, that are usable across a wide time period and variety of mission types would seem the best - hence, my comment on tracking numbers built and period of service where possible.

 

I agree. I'm on it (regarding service histories)!

 

That said, the developers only need to be convinced that programming the flight models and damage models is worth it - at least if a 3rd party appears which is willing to do the research and produce the artwork/3d models... 

 

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It would help if the early bombers/recon would be just AI and they really should be seen as „part of the map“. It‘s those planes (or their presence) that create basic game play in any historical sense. But selling aircraft that are either awkward to control or have terrible flight performances (or both) are probably a limited sale. I don‘t think they justify the same effort as the few planes that are indeed flown in a very competitive manner.

 

 

 

Three observations:

 

1) The open cockpits of WWI aircraft mean that external models require researching and modelling the cockpit. Producing a higher detail cockpit based on this research allows reselling the aircraft as a Collector Plane, so it might actually be quite a bit more profitable overall to produce a flyable aircraft than an AI aircraft - even if the sales of the Collector Plane aren't particularly high. So, a flyable aircraft might actually be the most efficient way to have them added as 'part of the map'.

 

2) Performance data may not be just as complete as later types:

- For instance the Caudron G.4 and Voisin V both have climb tables (I haven't checked the others yet). Given the relatively limited testing of most WWI aircraft, this level of documentation is about the best one can expect.

- All of these aircraft have surviving examples! The partial exception is the Morane-Saulnier L - where only an original fuselage survives. However, two museums have built replicas using drawings.

 

3) These aircraft were actually pretty enjoyable to fly according to contemporary reports. There was more of an emphasis early in the war on making aircraft safe to control. The Caudron G.4 was regularly looped.

- I just crunched the numbers: The power-to-weight ratios (and power-to-wing area) for the Caudron G.IV and the Morane-Saulnier L are actually pretty competitive with the R.E.8 and Sopwith Strutter! I was pretty shocked by this outcome. This might actually explain why both designs were used as fighters for a while.

- The Voisins are about 20% worse. The aircraft which is really abysmal is the B.E.2c, it should have much more difficulty sustaining a turn.

 

P.S. I also have doubts that the developers will move away from their position on player quality flight-models for all aircraft (there has been twenty years of debate on this).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

1) The open cockpits of WWI aircraft mean that external models require researching and modelling the cockpit. Producing a higher detail cockpit based on this research allows reselling the aircraft as a Collector Plane, so it might actually be quite a bit more profitable overall to produce a flyable aircraft than an AI aircraft - even if the sales of the Collector Plane aren't particularly high. So, a flyable aircraft might actually be the most efficient way to have them added as 'part of the map'.

I am rather certain that modelling a correct and detailed cockpit for AI only planes is not required. You're rarely close enough to read the gauges in the cockpit of your prey. I would say the savings in effort for modelling the whole crate is massive if the cockpit is a better stand-in than a study level pit.

 

Also, I would say that the effort put in finishing a complete flight moldel is about equal to making a 3D model of the plane. Lacking proper documentation, it might even be worse.

 

I'd rather have Be2's present in a way that I can have 20 of them as NOT present in a perfect way.

 

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

These aircraft were actually pretty enjoyable to fly according to contemporary reports.

A contemprary report is just that, it might be that an aircraft that is not outright up for killing the pilot may be regarded as "pleasant to fly". Spraying hot oil in your face all the time was not counted as creature discomfort anway. What do you wear a scarf for?

 

Mind you, those simple aircraft that people learned to fly on (!) are now aircraft reserved for only the most proficiant of all pilots. And this is not just because of the value (monetary and otherwise) of the aircraft, but because those aircraft are rather different in how you control them. And that is also what makes them at times unsuitable for most uses, including air combat.

 

Those aircraft had to adhere to a certain power to weight ratio, and that ratio was known. Otherwhise the aircraft would simply not fly right. The Be2 is actually a pleasant plane because (to quote Maurice Baring) it was designed by someone who was affraid of flying. It was thus a stable aircraft that cared little for control inputs but just flew (when it flew).

 

The Morane L surely looks good on paper (in contrast to other nightmares) but as as aircraft with absolutely no rudder pedal force, hardly any elevator force (besides a slight pull forward on the stick in flight and when you let go the handle it will fall forward such that you can't grab it anymoere!) and basically unusuably hard "ailerons"/wing wrap, this was an aircraft that essentially was good for constantly putting the pilot in mortal danger. The upside is, the surviving pilots became such good and alert flyers, they could deal with almost any other aircraft. You're not gonna do much doghfight with that. That besides the likelyhood it come apart in maneuvers commonly done online.

 

Nice to fly then has little to do with nice to fly today. Hence, you cannot expect them to compare even in the least with modern designs. It is already bad enough that for most planes (except the Fokkers!) we have ailerons such that we had to be muscular in a way woe wouldn't fit in the cockpit anymore in order to work them as we do in the game.

 

And just because someone stunted those aircraft back then somehow, that doesn't mean it is generally survivable for any poor shmock unortunate enough to be sent up.

 

"Because I was inverted"

 

"Look mom! No wheels!"

 

I do think the planes would come at a fraction of the investment when they had a generic FM with plausible performance and an AI that maybe stunts the aircraft only within reason. And a detailed cockpit would not be required. There shouldn't be too much rivet counting for drones. I better have a drone than nothing at all.

Edited April 16, 2023 by ZachariasX

[Avimimus]

 

16 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

The Be2c/d fits all that criteria well, even if interesting cases can be made for Moranes, Caudron and Voisin on the French and some British fronts. On the Central side I don't really know but am sure we could narrow it down pretty quick. 

 

If I were making suggestions to a third party - I'd probably suggest the Caudron G.4 over the B.E.2c for a number of reasons:

- The Caudron has a higher power-to-weight ratio, a larger bombload, and somewhat better options for defensive armaments.

- It is also very visually distinctive (which is good for sales, especially as one doesn't need much knowledge of history to be captured by an interesting appearance).- It would also give us a second French two seater (Britain currently has 5), and a French twin-engined design, and was mass produced to ~1400 examples.

- The last daylight use on the Western Front was by the British RNAS, who used it as a bomber into February 1917... which would allow extending the bombing career backwards for the British.

- One might be able to sell the single-seat version as a separate Collector Plane.

 

The B.E.2c had a somewhat longer service life and about twice as many were produced (if one counts all variants, including trainers, home defense aircraft, and aircraft with narrower wings etc.) 

 

Note: I say this in spite of my own biases - I personally find the Morane-Saulnier L most appealing for a number of reasons!

As for Germany-  I'll make a thread on this eventually, but...

Spoiler

Production was split pretty evenly between three types, with each type peaking at about 300 aircraft operational: Of these, the LVG C.II was the best armed, having a fixed forward firing gun and a heavier bombload; the Albatros C.I sometimes had a flexible overwing gun added (operated by the gunner, not the pilot) giving it some offensive capability; the Aviatik C.I had the most awkward defensive gun position (with the gunner in front of the pilot and the guns firing sideways and to the rear).

 

Note: Some sources give that Aviatik a speed of 142 km/h while other sources give it a speed of 120 km/h... so it was either too fast for our purposes or slow enough to be vulnerable to the Caudron and Moraine-Saulnier L! The Rumpler C.I appeared a bit later and is too fast for our purposes (152 km/h)! The slightly later Albatros C.III had a forward firing gun added but was also too fast at 145 km/h.

 

The AGO C.I is also an interesting type (already mentioned by Kestrel in this thread) that was slightly earlier and had a pusher configuration which led to it being withdrawn earlier (although I believe it remained with some naval stations longer). It was also produced in somewhat lower numbers.

 

I also noticed you wrote 'Central Powers' which includes Austria-Hungary - in which case I'd recommend a Phönix built Hansa Brandenburg C.I (it was the most widely used and the Phönix built has the most options for interesting field modifications - as well as pioneered some improvements that eventually appeared in most other production lines)!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Avimimus

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

A contemprary report is just that, it might be that an aircraft that is not outright up for killing the pilot may be regarded as "pleasant to fly". Spraying hot oil in your face all the time was not counted as creature discomfort anway. What do you wear a scarf for?

 

I'll grant you that!

 

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Those aircraft had to adhere to a certain power to weight ratio, and that ratio was known. Otherwhise the aircraft would simply not fly right. The Be2 is actually a pleasant plane because (to quote Maurice Baring) it was designed by someone who was affraid of flying. It was thus a stable aircraft that cared little for control inputs but just flew (when it flew).

 

The Morane L surely looks good on paper (in contrast to other nightmares) but as as aircraft with absolutely no rudder pedal force, hardly any elevator force (besides a slight pull forward on the stick in flight and when you let go the handle it will fall forward such that you can't grab it anymoere!) and basically unusuably hard "ailerons"/wing wrap, this was an aircraft that essentially was good for constantly putting the pilot in mortal danger. The upside is, the surviving pilots became such good and alert flyers, they could deal with almost any other aircraft. You're not gonna do much doghfight with that. That besides the likelyhood it come apart in maneuvers commonly done online.

 

I'll also agree that the Morane-Saulnier L might well have been the most difficult to fly, relatively oversensitive regarding the elevator and with a poor roll rate (in the wing warping versions). That said, it was apparently selected a liaison aircraft over other French designs, as it could apparently land on small unprepared strips... so it likely can't have been that bad. What you write about all moving control surfaces does apply to the Fokker E.III and the rudders of a lot of other WWI  aircraft though! Overall, a lot of this could be applied to most WWI aircraft!

 

The thing is - I found I preferred the Albatros D.II to the D.III/D.Va, I preferred the Nieuport N.11 to the N.17. I even put more time into the Halberstadt than in to the SPADs... for me it was just a more pleasurable experience. Of course, that is just my personal experience.

 

I'll admit that - while the Airco D.H.2 was one of my favourites to fly for sight-seeing - the fact that the version they chose to model was about ~30 km/h slower than its enemies limited its combat appeal to strafing and fighting off Fokker E.III. I suspect that a lot of these aircraft would be more popular if we had a couple more 1916 types to round out the experience.

[ST_Catchov]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Morane L .... was an aircraft that essentially was good for constantly putting the pilot in mortal danger.

 

Leave her alone. I love her! 

 

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The upside is, the surviving pilots became such good and alert flyers, they could deal with almost any other aircraft.

 

Cecil Lewis being one. He did however become very fond of her somewhat idiosyncratic charms. A real lady.

 

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Note: I say this in spite of my own biases - I personally find the Morane-Saulnier L most appealing for a number of reasons!

 

Finally, a positive take on Her Gorgeousness. What's not to like?

 

 

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

On 4/15/2023 at 7:35 AM, J2_Trupobaw said:

But for higher ups these planes and tactics were only stop gap measures, to be used until the "proper" battle plane is available. As soon as imediate pressure of war was over the French went back to the flying battleship fixation, and kept developing along these lines until 1930s; only after wake up calls of Spanish civil war and creation of Luftwaffe they abandoned the idea. This was largely responsible for Armee de l'air lack of equipment preparedness in 1940 - much like in 1916, they were stuck with wrong kind of plane for to long and had to change paradigms on the fly.

 

Which brings us to an honourable mention:

 

Caudron R.4

 

 

Overview:

Built to the A3 requirement for a three-seat fighter (with gunners able to fire to both the front and the rear). In total France deployed over 750 aircraft built to these requirements of which the R.4 contributed about 250 aircraft.

 

Surprisingly, at the start of 1916 with combat happening at relatively low speeds, the type was quite successful - with at least five aircrews achieving 'ace' status and the half dozen aircraft of Escadrille C.46 claiming 34 victories in one month.

 

With the added weight of the second gunner it could only carry 100 kg of bombs (less than the Voisins).  However, its good defensive capabilities allowed it to shift into observation and fire-correction roles after the aircraft ceased to be effective escort fighters. However, the concept was further developed in the faster Letord Let.5-Let.9 of 1917 and the Caudron R.11 of 1918.

 

More immediately, the R.4 gave rise to the G.6 with extensive changes and the front gunner removed entirely (saving 200 kg in weight, doubling the bomb laod, raising the airspeed above 145 km/h). Over 500 G.6 were built. However, these were fast enough to outpace the Fokker E.III and Halberstadt.

 

Speed: 135 km/h

Weapons load: Two gunner positions, only 100 kg of bombs.

 

Service: Introduced October-November 1916

Relevance: Relatively limited production but still significant (e.g. almost two thirds as many examples built as Fokker E.III) and introduced early enough in the war to see extensive service (i.e. compared to the Let. and R.11/R.12). These aircraft are interesting as a unique concept, a three seat French type and would be undoubtedly interesting to encounter in a campaign - but had less of an overall impact than the French two-seat types (which are almost entirely unrepresented with the Br.14 being the only example in the sim).

 

Note: The Letord Let.1-Let.5 might be of interested. Introduced as a replacement in mid-1917 - it increased the speed to 170 km/h, bombload to 150 kg, and regularly carried two guns for each of the two gunners. However, its later introduction and higher top-speed make it irrelevant to this thread.

 

One other A3 design that is theoretically early enough and slow enough was the Salmson Moineau S.M.1. However, sources differ on how many were made and how many were held back in reserve units... with the overall opinion that the single engine twin-shaft indirect drive was a source of ongoing issues. Interestingly, video survives - see spoiler:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

One more "Honourable mention":

 

Nieuport N.10/N.12

 

Overview: The Nieuport 10 was similar to the Nieuport 11 - but larger and longer to incorporate a second crew member. The Nieuport 12 was further enlarged with a more powerful engine and other updates to the design.

 

Weapon loads:

 

- The Nieuport 10 observer position was eventually moved to the rear in this aircraft (and in some cases the gunner could stand up and operate a second machine gun mounted to fire forward over the wing). Many aircraft were converted to single-seat fighters with a fixed overwing or oblique mounted machine guns.

 

- Some Nieuport 12 incorporated a synchronised machine gun for the pilot. The Nieuport 12 also sometimes carried two defensive guns (for a total of three guns). Furthermore, the Etévé mounting could be raised to expand the field of fire forward, allowing the gunner to use the weapons offensively.

 

- Almost all surviving photographs show these aircraft without bombs. The Nieuport N.10 carried bomb loads of at least 45kg in RNAS service. I am uncertain of the bombload of the N.12.

 

Relevance: Production was not as extensive as other French two seaters (particularly the Nieuport N.12). I have found little evidence of use as bombers, and only two pilots appear to have become aces on this type. The Nieuport N.10 was one of the first aircraft equipped with a fixed forward firing gun.

 

Speeds:

Nieuport 10: 135-138 km/h (for comparison the Nieuport N.11 152 km/h)
Nieuport 12: 146 km/h (for comparison the Nieuport N.17 165 km/h).

 

Note: The Nieuport 12 might be more appealing overall (e.g. the transparent wing cellules are quite striking). However, the Nieuport 12 is too fast for the purposes of this thread - as it is able to outrun the Fokker E.III and Halberstadt D.II. It might make a good opponent for them to dogfight - but it wouldn't be slow enough to reliably catch.

 

 

Some Nieuport 12 Armament variations (Etévé mounting, and a twin Lewis version):

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Avimimus

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The Nieuport 12 might be more appealing overall

Anyone bringing an air gun to the battle has a certain appeal. Especially when the are making themselves comfortable on the top wing for better aim.

[No.23_Starling]

On 4/23/2023 at 4:01 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Which brings us to an honourable mention:

 

Caudron R.4

 

 

Overview:

Built to the A3 requirement for a three-seat fighter (with gunners able to fire to both the front and the rear). In total France deployed over 750 aircraft built to these requirements of which the R.4 contributed about 250 aircraft.

 

Surprisingly, at the start of 1916 with combat happening at relatively low speeds, the type was quite successful - with at least five aircrews achieving 'ace' status and the half dozen aircraft of Escadrille C.46 claiming 34 victories in one month.

 

With the added weight of the second gunner it could only carry 100 kg of bombs (less than the Voisins).  However, its good defensive capabilities allowed it to shift into observation and fire-correction roles after the aircraft ceased to be effective escort fighters. However, the concept was further developed in the faster Letord Let.5-Let.9 of 1917 and the Caudron R.11 of 1918.

 

More immediately, the R.4 gave rise to the G.6 with extensive changes and the front gunner removed entirely (saving 200 kg in weight, doubling the bomb laod, raising the airspeed above 145 km/h). Over 500 G.6 were built. However, these were fast enough to outpace the Fokker E.III and Halberstadt.

 

Speed: 135 km/h

Weapons load: Two gunner positions, only 100 kg of bombs.

 

Service: Introduced October-November 1916

Relevance: Relatively limited production but still significant (e.g. almost two thirds as many examples built as Fokker E.III) and introduced early enough in the war to see extensive service (i.e. compared to the Let. and R.11/R.12). These aircraft are interesting as a unique concept, a three seat French type and would be undoubtedly interesting to encounter in a campaign - but had less of an overall impact than the French two-seat types (which are almost entirely unrepresented with the Br.14 being the only example in the sim).

 

Note: The Letord Let.1-Let.5 might be of interested. Introduced as a replacement in mid-1917 - it increased the speed to 170 km/h, bombload to 150 kg, and regularly carried two guns for each of the two gunners. However, its later introduction and higher top-speed make it irrelevant to this thread.

 

One other A3 design that is theoretically early enough and slow enough was the Salmson Moineau S.M.1. However, sources differ on how many were made and how many were held back in reserve units... with the overall opinion that the single engine twin-shaft indirect drive was a source of ongoing issues. Interestingly, video survives - see spoiler:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

One more "Honourable mention":

 

Nieuport N.10/N.12

 

Overview: The Nieuport 10 was similar to the Nieuport 11 - but larger and longer to incorporate a second crew member. The Nieuport 12 was further enlarged with a more powerful engine and other updates to the design.

 

Weapon loads:

- The crew member was eventually moved to the rear in this aircraft (and in some cases the gunner could stand up and operate a second machine gun mounted to fire forward over the wing). Many aircraft were converted to single-seat fighters with a fixed overwing or oblique machine gun.

- The Nieuport 12 incorporated a synchronised machine gun for the pilot.

- Almost all surviving photographs show these aircraft without bombs. The Nieuport N.10 carried bomb loads of at least 45kg in RNAS service. I am uncertain of the bombload of the N.12.

 

Relevance: Their relevance is mainly associated with the development of the Nieuport series of fighters (with the N.10 being one of the first aircraft equipped with a fixed forward firing gun). Production was not as extensive as other French two seaters (maybe half that of the Morane Saulnier L and a quarter that of the Caudron G.4). These designs were used in the fighter and observation roles (i.e. not as bombers). Only two pilots appear to have become aces on this type. However, I'm sure it has a lot of appeal for all those who love Nieuports.

 

Speeds:

Nieuport 10: 135-138 km/h (for comparison the Nieuport N.11 152 km/h)
Nieuport 12: 146 km/h (for comparison the Nieuport N.17 165 km/h).

 

Note: The Nieuport 12 might be more appealing overall (e.g. the transparent wing cellules are quite striking). However, the Nieuport 12 is too fast for the purposes of this thread - as it is able to outrun the Fokker E.III and Halberstadt D.II. It might make a good opponent for them to dogfight - but it wouldn't be slow enough to reliably catch.

Hey buddy, it makes sense to petition for the most common types. In that spirit here’s some lovely inventory data from Davilla’s big book of French ww1 planes.

 

You are pretty much spot on for the most common types not currently in the 1916 planeset. I also have the inventory data for the German A, B, and C + E scout types if you want to see what’s missing on the other side. The howling gap for me is the Fokker DII and the LVG CII / Albatross CIII, all more common that the Halb DII or Roland we had in RoF.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Looking at those lists, I get the feeling that either the Caudron R.4, or much more likely, the Vendôme (because nobody can say the name) is a soon to be released for DCS.

 

Speaking of Nick Grey, he did sell us an „Asset Pack“ in his jet simulator that even contained the AI B-17 among other stuff. Imagine we got an asset pack like that with maybe 5 planes as AI from those lists… But nah, „not possible“, „not financially viable“, „nobody wants“ that, and: „It can‘t be done“.

[ST_Catchov]

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Looking at those lists, I get the feeling that either the Caudron R.4, or much more likely, the Vendôme (because nobody can say the name) is a soon to be released for DCS.

 

If only it were so. I might get interested in it. ?

 

But that's beside the point. The name Vendôme intrigued moi being l‟avion un, according to Rummy's list. So there's this guy called Raoul Vendôme see and he builds kites. He's a bit of an obscure chap but I think the crate Rummy refers to is a monoplane although I'm not entirely sure. Anyway here's some fascinating photographs of what it may have looked like. Intrepid chaps them was back then but perhaps it explains why there was only un!

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Anyway here's some fascinating photographs of what it may have looked like. Intrepid chaps them was back then but perhaps it explains why there was only un!

They are fantastic! The „Type Militaire“ can be disassembled in 3 minutes and reassembled in 5 minutes… they say. I love them.

[Avimimus]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:50 PM, ZachariasX said:

Anyone bringing an air gun to the battle has a certain appeal. Especially when the are making themselves comfortable on the top wing for better aim.

 

Interestingly... the big difference between this and the initial mountings (for the Nieuport N.10, Albatros C.I etc.) was that the gun was attached to a pivot and the gunner had nothing to lean on... see the photos in the spoiler for an example:

Spoiler

 

 

 

On 4/25/2023 at 7:12 AM, US103_Rummell said:

Hey buddy, it makes sense to petition for the most common types. In that spirit here’s some lovely inventory data from Davilla’s big book of French ww1 planes.

 

You are pretty much spot on for the most common types not currently in the 1916 planeset. I also have the inventory data for the German A, B, and C + E scout types if you want to see what’s missing on the other side. The howling gap for me is the Fokker DII and the LVG CII / Albatross CIII, all more common that the Halb DII or Roland we had in RoF.

 

The Roland D.II/D.IIa was probably slightly more significant than the Fokker D.II/D.III, so it should probably be on the list. If we were going by raw numbers it would be the Roland D.VI, then the Roland D.II, then the Fokker D.II/D.III (and then the Fokker E.I and E.IV). Is your dataset for the German inventory the 'Frontebestand'?

 

P.S. Remember we're not petitioning in this thread  Just exploring possible gaps and their gameplay implications for completely academic purposes...!

 

 

On 4/25/2023 at 7:12 AM, US103_Rummell said:

In that spirit here’s some lovely inventory data from Davilla’s big book of French ww1 planes.

 

Thanks! This information is much appreciated (especially for the French)! This will make me have to revise the relevance of the N.10 (beyond just looking at production numbers).

 

I assume these sources include the training escadrilles? It is hard to imagine the M.F. 7 remained in front-line service that late (especially given what other sources say)!

 

 

On 4/25/2023 at 1:20 PM, ZachariasX said:

Looking at those lists, I get the feeling that either the Caudron R.4, or much more likely, the Vendôme (because nobody can say the name) is a soon to be released for DCS.

 

I'd caution that these lists (kindly provided by US103_Rummell) each only show the inventory at a specific point in time. Numbers changed throughout the course of the war.

 

For instance - Listed production for the Caudron R.4 is 249 examples. Standard French practice at that time was, I believe, six operational aircraft and three reserve aircraft for each escadrille. That means that production was sufficient to fully equip 27 escadrilles! Of course, if one factors in replacements for losses the number of squadrons equipped would be much smaller... but it is still definitely a lot more than one aircraft! So, thos information is useful - but it doesn't tell the whole story of the war.

 

P.S. The listing of the French built copies of the Caproni trimotor bombers is quite interesting! It is another possibility for a three crew design in French service (if someone felt a need to give them something like the Handley-Page or Gotha)!

Edited April 27, 2023 by Avimimus