Thinking about 1916 German two-seaters

[Avimimus]

I found some interesting difficulties exploring 1915/1916 German two-seaters:

 

A major limitation is that even experienced pilots had limited experience on other types. The fact that the next generation of two-seaters was described by pilots as dangerously 'unstable', and the fact that many of these types were returned to production as trainers, suggests docile handling characteristics.

 

Officials seem to have been much more interest in assessing whether designs achieved the basics of flight - safely taking off, climbing, and landing. As such assessments of airspeed in level flight are often unclear or contradictory.

 

Overall these designs should have:
- Better visibility compared to other two-seaters (due to the relatively smaller engines)
- Relatively good stability (at the cost of some manoeuvrability)

 

Why are these designs of interest for a flight sim:

1. Some of them are slow enough to represent the B-type and early C-type two seaters that were common prey for the Airco DH.2 and Nieuport N.11 (currently in our sim there are no two-seaters which are slow enough to be easily caught by these fighters)!

2. Some these two-seaters were used to hunt other early two-seaters: Their performance wasn't that different from the Voisin, Caudron, and early B.E.2 variants. This allowed two-seaters on both sides to be used offensively against each other in 1916 (opening up gameplay potential).

3. Many aces gained their first combat experiences flying these types (and even in the late-war these were used as trainers).

 

Of course, this isn't a suggestions thread - but it is interesting to think about what the experience would be like if we could encounter these types (or if we could fly them).

 

Numerical Significance:

- All of these types appear at the front in the summer of 1915 and were  withdrawn before the fall of 1917.
- All of these types were produced in roughly similar numbers:

- The Albatros C.I peaked a bit earlier (349 aircraft in February of 1916). The Aviatik C.I peaked a bit later (219 in July), The LVG C.II also peaked in July (255 aircraft) but was withdrawn at a lower rate: By December 1916 155 LVG C.II, 110 Aviatik C.I, and 90 Albatros C.I were still at the front.

 

 

 

 

Albatros C.I

 

 

Overview:

- Similar to the unarmed Albatros B-type but enlarged, with a more powerful engine and armament

- One of the first types with a defensive gunner/observer behind the pilot

- Early examples had armour plating (later removed to save weight).

 

Performance:
132-140 km/h

 

Armament options:

- Field modification with an extended gun mounting to raise the machine gun higher (thus expanding the field of fire)

- Field modifications with an additional gun mounted to fire over the upper wing for offensive use. It appears these guns were usually operated by the observer (who stood to use them). Photographs show Parabellums used for this purpose, as well as captured Lewis and Madsen guns.

- Three aircraft may have been fitted with a synchronised forward firing machine gun (However, only photographs of a Albatros prototype used to developed synchronising gear appear to survive).

 

Bomb load:
- 40 kg (mounted in internal tubes between the gunner and the pilot)
- 70 kg in overload (additional bombs may have been hand-dropped).

 

 

LVG C.II

 

 

Overview:

- Extensive plating of the forward fuselage (gives it a distinctive appearance)

- One of the first types with a defensive gunner/observer behind the pilot.

- One of the first types to have a synchronised machine gun for the pilot.

- Somewhat overlooked (compared to the Aviatik for instance), but more widespread (and commonly appears in kill-lists).

 

Performance:
130 km/h

 

Armament options:

- Later production runs of the LVG C.II had a synchronised forward firing machine gun for the pilot.

- A field modification with an oblique forward firing Lewis gun in Russian service (similar to the layout of the R.E.8).

 

Bomb load:
- 50 kg (likely four bombs carried internally).
- 300 kg in an extended span night bomber version (number of aircraft converted is unknown, photographs exist of the prototype).

 

 

Aviatik C.I

 

Note: The above image is actually an Aviatik C.II - I found good images of the C.II's gun arrangement, and a transitional Aviatik B-type that had been given a defensive armament, but I didn't find a moderately high resolution image of the C.I

 

Overview:

- Ineffective armament arrangement (making it a good counterpart to the B.E.2).

- No offensive armament options (other than bombs)

 

Performance
- 120-140 km/h (depending on the source)

- Slightly lighter and with a larger wing span than the other types (17.44 kg/sq.m. vs. 21.66 kg/m2 for the Albatros and 22.47 kg/sq.m. for the LVG C.II)

 

Armament options:

- The gunner/observer sat in front of the pilot. Some aircraft may have had two sideways firing machine guns, while other aircraft carried one and relied on the gunner having time to switch sides in combat.

 

Bomb load:
- 60 kg

 

 

AGO C.I

 

 

Overview:

- The most numerous German pusher

- Much less numerous than the other types (and withdrawn to secondary roles).

 

Performance:
~130 km/h

 

Armament options:

- One flexible forward firing machine gun (the gunner was located in front of the pilot)
- Two prototypes reportedly modified as platforms for testing the 20mm Becker cannon (although these tests may have taken place after the war).

 

Bomb load:
- Field modifications allowed 50 kg of bombs to be carried on the sides or under the fuselage (the latter field mod requiring redesigning of the landing gear - and being banned at one point).

[Avimimus]

"Second Generation" early C-type two seaters

 

These aircraft appeared at the beginning of 1916 and showed a greater interest in speed and performance as a form of defence. They are too fast to be easily caught by the Airco D.H.5 or Nieuport N.11.

 

Similar to the LVG C.II, late production examples had a synchronised forward firing gun added for the pilot.

 

Relevance:

- These aircraft appear about six months after the early C-types (above), appearing at the beginning of 1916 (rather than the summer of 1915). However, these aircraft are withdrawn at the same time as the earlier C-types (towards the end of 1917). As a result they had a shorter time in service.

- The Albatros C.III peaked with 354 at the front in August 1916, while the Rumpler C.I peaked with 231 at the Front in October.

 

Albatros C.III

 

Overview:

- Similar powerplant to the Albatros C.I and gradually replaced the C.I in service

- Reduced in size and streamlined. This increased the top speed and also increased the manoeuvrability (aircrews were initially apparently alarmed by this).

 

Performance:

- 140 km/h (possibly as high as 150 km/h in some versions).

- Both slightly longer and shorter span versions existed

 

Armament options:

- Later production batches had a synchronised fixed forward firing gun for the pilot

- A field modification in Russian service with an oblique over-wing gun is documented.

 

Bomb load:

- 50 kg internally (up to 90 kg if using external racks).

 

 

Rumpler C.I

 

 

Overview:

- Not as fast or high flying as the later war Rumplers (e.g. C.IV) but still high enough performance to be uninterceptable by the Nieuport N.11 and Airco D.H.2

 

Performance:

- 152 km/h

- Somewhat smaller wing area than the other types

- Slightly higher flying (Ceiling 5060m)

 

Armament options:

- Field modifications with Parabellum or captured Lewis guns firing forward over the upper wing are also documented.

- Fifth production batch onward had a synchronised machine gun for the pilot.

 

Bomb load:

- Up to 100 kg on external racks

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Albatros C.III and late war Rumpler C.VII Rubild are the Central two-seaters most sorely lacking from the planeset. On Entente we’re mainly missing the Caudron and BE2c.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, =IMP=Hellbender said:

Albatros C.III and late war Rumpler C.VII Rubild are the Central two-seaters most sorely lacking from the planeset. On Entente we’re mainly missing the Caudron and BE2c.

 

You'd prefer an Albatros C.III over an Albatros C.I (or an LVG C.II)?

 

If you don't mind me asking - what is the appeal of the C.III? I'm curious.

 

My own personal perspective is that it benefits from having a synchronised machine gun (although the C.I's over-wing machine gun configurations provide some offensive firepower with a kind-of 'transitional' appearance - if none of them were fixed it might be frustrating to rely on an AI observer). The other appeal might be that the C.III is a bit more streamlined, while the C.I looks like an enlarged 'B-type' and pretty similar to an Aviatik. However, a lot of the later Albatros are even more streamlined. I might be missing something though?

 

Also, if anyone has more exact performance figures for these aircraft - let me know. The C.III seems too fast for the Airco D.H.2 (but within reach of the Nieuport N.11)

 

P.S. I might make polls based on these threads someday - but I need feedback on what to include and what to leave out - in order to avoid making the choices a little overwhelming.

[No.23_Triggers]

FC definitely needs some padding in the early two-seater department, both on the German and the Entente sides, especially with the DeHav and (even more so) the Eindecker on the horizon. 

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, No.23_Triggers said:

FC definitely needs some padding in the early two-seater department, both on the German and the Entente sides, especially with the DeHav and (even more so) the Eindecker on the horizon. 

BE2c. And something a bit more early war on the German side which was used in numbers. BE2c with Lewis firing at an angle forward mounted by the pilot 

[Avimimus]

53 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

BE2c. And something a bit more early war on the German side which was used in numbers. BE2c with Lewis firing at an angle forward mounted by the pilot 

 

The question though is - which one?

 

All of these types peaked with between 220 and 350 aircraft and were withdrawn at around the same time (although the C.III and Rumpler were introduced six months later). Note: The AGO is an exception to this (being a pusher, less produced, and with a shorter front-line service life).

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 6/18/2023 at 6:54 PM, Avimimus said:

You'd prefer an Albatros C.III over an Albatros C.I (or an LVG C.II)?

 

If you don't mind me asking - what is the appeal of the C.III? I'm curious.

 

My own personal perspective is that it benefits from having a synchronised machine gun (although the C.I's over-wing machine gun configurations provide some offensive firepower with a kind-of 'transitional' appearance - if none of them were fixed it might be frustrating to rely on an AI observer). The other appeal might be that the C.III is a bit more streamlined, while the C.I looks like an enlarged 'B-type' and pretty similar to an Aviatik. However, a lot of the later Albatros are even more streamlined. I might be missing something though?

 

Also, if anyone has more exact performance figures for these aircraft - let me know. The C.III seems too fast for the Airco D.H.2 (but within reach of the Nieuport N.11)

 

P.S. I might make polls based on these threads someday - but I need feedback on what to include and what to leave out - in order to avoid making the choices a little overwhelming.

 

Ah, I have no real preference for the C.I or C.III. The C.III obviously served longer, and in greater numbers. Just like the sand people.

 

The only correct answer, really, is that we should have both.

[Avimimus]

On 6/18/2023 at 6:15 PM, US103_Rummell said:

BE2c. And something a bit more early war on the German side which was used in numbers. BE2c with Lewis firing at an angle forward mounted by the pilot 

 

One could also possibly go with a B.E.12 fighter derivative if one wanted some offensive firepower and a larger bomb-load (Active August 1916 to March 1917 on the Western Front, longer service in home defence and other theatres). For the initial variant - I think the engine cowling would have to be completely redesigned (and switched to an RAF4 engine). However, the rest of the aircraft was largely the same.

 

 

6 hours ago, =IMP=Hellbender said:

Ah, I have no real preference for the C.I or C.III. The C.III obviously served longer, and in greater numbers. Just like the sand people.

 

The only correct answer, really, is that we should have both.

 

I believe that particularly equation actually favours the C.I. According to the Frontbestand (v1.3):

- The C.I served at the front for about six months longer than the C.III (The C.III arrived six months later and was withdrawn at almost the same time).

- Both also peaked at similar amounts (349 in February for the C.I, 354 in August for the C.III).

 

That said - if one is only interested in the fall/winter of that year... well, the numerical ratios have shifted (but the story is a bit more complicated - so I'll add another post when I get some time).

  

 

[ST_Catchov]

@Avimimus Another thoughtful and well-researched thread with great pics (where do you find 'em?). It's nice to see a mod with an interest in WW1 aviation. Perhaps, if the new management team can fulfil their goal of increasing employees to 52? (I think I read that somewhere), maybe they can dedicate more resources to FM revisions for the older FC crates and more new (non-RoF) kites? 

 

As bender said, and I'll take his word for it ....

 

On 6/20/2023 at 6:33 PM, Hellbender said:

Just like the sand people.

 

 

[Avimimus]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:57 AM, ST_Catchov said:

@Avimimus Another thoughtful and well-researched thread with great pics (where do you find 'em?). It's nice to see a mod with an interest in WW1 aviation. Perhaps, if the new management team can fulfil their goal of increasing employees to 52? (I think I read that somewhere), maybe they can dedicate more resources to FM revisions for the older FC crates and more new (non-RoF) kites? 

 

As bender said, and I'll take his word for it ....

 

Thank you!! The trick is looking through a lot of pictures to try and find something that gives a good overview of the aircraft. I would have included more - but the goal of these threads is a quick overview of the gaps - and it is a lot easier to compare descriptions of different aircraft if there isn't too many pictures in between.

 

I do share your hope - that hopefully expansion of the sim (and/or 3rd parties) will reach a point where a bit more WWI focussed coding, or a Channel Map (with the Rise of Flight seaplanes), or a couple of additional Collector Planes will seem like a good idea. Until then, it is interesting to think about what else existed and could exist.

[Avimimus]

In the winter of 1916/1917 there is a brief period when these 1916 types were being reduced in numbers - but before the DFW C.V appears in significant numbers. A few types filled this gap:

 

- Initial upgrades involved the Albatros C.III being strengthened to take the 180hp Argus As.III - becoming the C.VI. Similarly, the Rumpler C.I was modified to take this engine as the C.Ia. In both cases a slight increase in speed at lower altitudes was a result, with some loss in high altitude performance.

 

- The geared Mercedes IV powered Albatros C.V and LVG C.IV were fast for 1916, very hard to intercept, but larger and less manoeuvrable. They were often used in a role similar to the penetration flights that Rumplers eventually became famous for. This was the last time when German two-seaters could simply outrun their opponents at medium altitudes.  However, production numbers were limited due to problems with the engine.

 

- The Albatros C.VII appeared briefly in significant numbers (partially displacing the C.III) before being withdrawn in the summer of 1917. A general purpose design, it could reach similar speeds to the C.V, but with less altitude performance. It was less manoeuvrable but easier to fly than the C.III.

 

Note: The steel framed AEG C.IV also appeared in before the DFW C.V, and takes longer to be withdrawn than the other types, but is never numerous. This type is covered in another thread: 

 

 

Albatros C.V

 

Spoiler

This streamlined design appeared used the the new 220hp Mercedes D.IV engine:

- The longer low-mounted engine appears to give better visibility straight-forward.

- This troubled engine limited the total number produced (peaking at 65 examples at the front). However, it allowed speeds of 170 km/h and reach 5200 metres in height.

 

Performance:

- Speeds of 170 km/h and 5200 metres in height meant that, these designs briefly produced a situation similar to the one at the end of the war, but in reverse (where German fighters couldn't catch Entente two-seaters in the late war - these 1916 two seaters were actually faster than Entente fighters).

- However, the larger designs which could carry this powerful engine also tended to be heavier and less manoeuvrable. This meant that they tended to be used in roles which involved speed and altitude as a defense to penetrate behind the lines, while more manoeuvrable types were used for lower altitude artillery spotting duties.

 

Modifications and armament:

- The aggression permitted by such a performance advantage is apparent in the existence of a field modification using a captured Vickers to give the aircraft two synchronised guns for the pilot.

- Interestingly, another 'field mod' equipped the aircraft with an oblique downward firing 20mm Becker cannon for trials.

- 62.5 kg of bombs

 

Other modifications:

- While limited by engine availability and reliability, the type had high enough performance to encourage significant modernisation for the last fifty produced at the start of 1917, with balanced control surfaces, redesigned wingtips, and an improved radiator design leading to greater overall manoeuvrability. However, it was still withdrawn in the fall of 1917.

 

Overall, an interesting type, but similar to the Roland C.II in that it would be interesting to fly, but too rare to represent typical air-combat and too fast to be a good target for Entente fighters.

 

Note: In contrast the LVG C.IV built around the same engine lacked a forward firing gun, but was used to bomb London with partial success.

 

Albatros C.VII

 

Spoiler

 

Performance:

- Potentially almost as fast as the C.V

- Less agile than the C.III, but with better climb and higher ceiling (although considerably less ceiling than the C.V).

 

Field Modifications:

- Overwing Lewis gun

 

Relevance:

- Briefly very numerous, replacing large amounts of Albatros C.III in service. But quickly replaced by the DFW C.V (and the 260 hp Albatros C.X / C.XII, although these had their production limited due to the success of the DFW C.V). This means it was very representative, but for a short time.

 

Relevance:

 

By the summer of 1917 all of these types are being withdrawn in favour of the DFW C.V and Rumpler C.IV:

 

- The Albatros C.V might be the highest performance type (although the C.VII might be easier to fly), but was rare. It would be an interesting type for the player to try, but isn't representative of typical two seaters. Note: The Roland C.II wasn't as high flying, but was almost as fast, so we do already have a very high performance design from this era.

 

- The AEG C.IV wasn't very numerous but could also fill thus spot, and might be desirable if an AEG J.I was also planned. However, the reality is that constant redesign of the AEG J series means that the amount shared between the two designs isn't as great as one might expect.

 

- The Albatros C.III and Rumpler C.I/C.Ia survive in sufficient numbers into the spring of 1917. They are more representative of what was typically available. However, the LVG C.II and Albatros C.I also survive into the winter of 1916/1917 in sufficient numbers that no transitional type may be required before the introduction of the DFW C.V.

 

Note. J.Herris believes production has been over-estimated for the C.VI, but the Rumpler C.Ia production was relatively substantial.
 

Conclusion:

 

The Albatros C.V is elegant, the Rumpler C.Ia represents a well liked type, and the Albatros C.III was numerous - but the LVG C.II or Albatros C.I could represent typical early German two-seaters until the appearance of the DFW C.V.

 

As a result, none of the aircraft in this post are really necessary to provide a 'complete' plane-set.

[Gewehr98]

I might suggest the Rumpler C.I and/or the Aviatik C.I, mostly because both were covered extensively by L'Aerophile magazine during the war, including detailed blueprints. There is also an Aviatik C.I being restored at Memorial Flight.

 

I have the L'Aerophiles for both the Rumpler and Aviatik and will be more than happy to share them.

 

EDIT: Seems the LVG and the Alb C.III are also covered. I'm sure there are many more, as well.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Gewehr98

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, Gewehr98 said:

I might suggest the Rumpler C.I and/or the Aviatik C.I, mostly because both were covered extensively by L'Aerophile magazine during the war, including detailed blueprints. There is also an Aviatik C.I being restored at Memorial Flight.

 

I have the L'Aerophiles for both the Rumpler and Aviatik and will be more than happy to share them.

 

EDIT: Seems the LVG and the Alb C.III are also covered. I'm sure there are many more, as well.

 

 

I’d love to see those copies

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

42 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

I’d love to see those copies

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb344143803/date

 

1894-1947 , look for 1918

Edited September 10, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Avimimus]

On 9/10/2023 at 4:40 AM, Gewehr98 said:

I might suggest the Rumpler C.I and/or the Aviatik C.I, mostly because both were covered extensively by L'Aerophile magazine during the war, including detailed blueprints. There is also an Aviatik C.I being restored at Memorial Flight.

 

I have the L'Aerophiles for both the Rumpler and Aviatik and will be more than happy to share them.

 

EDIT: Seems the LVG and the Alb C.III are also covered. I'm sure there are many more, as well.

 

Nice finds! Those are pretty good work-downs.

 

A couple of pages before the Albatros C.III (in the January 1917 edition), they also wrote up the Albatros C.I - so that one also has documentation from them!

 

Furthermore, we have cockpit photos of some of these (showing instrument layouts) and they used several different engines (at least one of which should be documented). So they all look somewhat feasible.

 

P.S. As for choices - If I had to go to war in one, I'd pick the Rumpler ...but what we really need are slower targets (Albatros C.I, LVG C.II etc.). I'd suggest always considering maximum speed, and if it is too high to represent the later B and early C type two-seaters...

[Gewehr98]

The Aviatik was in the 1er Octobre 1916 edition of L'Aerophile, which I have yet to find. Some photos can be seen here though. You'll also notice some archival photos of captured Aviatiks, and the one that's being restored at Memorial Flight.

 

I'm trying to find Aerophiles for other early German 2 seaters, In the meantime, here is the May 1916 edition which covers the Mercedes D.II or D.III (i'm not an engine guy).

 

Put search terms like "Aviatik" and "Albatros" in this archive search engine and you'll come up with some great photos.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Gewehr98

[Gewehr98]

Seems like we're gonna need a Benz B.III regardless of which project is chosen. Does anyone have a higher resolution version of this diagram?

 

 

[Gewehr98]

No dimensions anywhere, but the bore is 130 mm so that could be used to scale everything correctly.

[Avimimus]

Interestingly there seem to be surviving (partial) cockpit photos for the LVG C.II, Albatros C.I and Albatros C.III as well!

[PatrickAWlson]

For early war two seaters, a Be2c and any of the early generation twos eaters mentioned above.  It really doesn't matter too much, but I would go with the LVG C.II just based on numbers or the Alb C.I based on slightly less numbers but very cool primitive looks.  If any of the above were to be made they would have to exist in a campaign until they could be replaced by the DFW.  

 

I had been advocating for a Alb C.III and would still love to see it.  It was not quite as long in the tooth in late 1916 and would be usable into 1917.  The Albatros C.III was available in late 1915, so it is a very viable 1916 aircraft.  The down side is that it might be too much for the DH.2, but there is a reason why "Great DH.2 Aces" is a pretty thin book.

 

At the moment I am able to kill a perfectly reasonable number of in game FE.2s despite the fact that our Fee is a later model and faster than the Eindecker.  if I stalk them and then dive on them, gain on them while they are turning to avoid AA I can get one.  Once they start maneuvering the Eindecker can hang with them no problem.  I would be curious if the same tactics would bring success in a DH.2 vs Alb C.III.  Whatever the case, it's got to be easier than trying to take down a DFW.  Both amazing and apalling that Brits were still fighting in DH.2s in 1917.

[Avimimus]

I agree with your assessment entirely.

 

P.S. I might just add a note that the almost total absence of French two-seaters (in spite of France deploying tremendous numbers of them) would make it ideal to have three early two-seaters - one for Germany, one for France, and one for England... in an ideal world anyway.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Is the problem with the early 2 seaters not that most of them were either unarmed or lacking forward facing guns ?

That I could see as a reason they wouldn't sell in sufficient numbers.

 

That said, I think there should be a few added as AI only planes.

At least then there could be proper early war scenarios available to play.

 

S!

[Avimimus]

On 9/22/2024 at 3:05 AM, Zooropa_Fly said:

Is the problem with the early 2 seaters not that most of them were either unarmed or lacking forward facing guns ?

That I could see as a reason they wouldn't sell in sufficient numbers.

 

That said, I think there should be a few added as AI only planes.

At least then there could be proper early war scenarios available to play.

 

S!

 

There are two issues:

- AI assets are released for free to all users

- With WWI aircraft most of the research required to do the interior needs to be done to model the exterior

 

I think there is a bias towards getting the newest designs from any given era (which doesn't really make sense, as the advanced monoplane aircraft in Battle of Moscow are just as cutting edge compared to the 1930s as the aircraft in Battle of Bodenplatte are to the early 1940s - and even the Me-262 isn't cutting edge compared to Korea). That said, if they can do the C-47 or Waco glider, I suspect a 3rd party might be able to successfully deliver a Caudron G.IV.

 

There is another benefit too - having these aircraft would allow adding the Fokker D.II, Morane-Saulnier N, and possibly the 'elite' Fokker E.IV/Fokker D.III... so it could be part of an expansion with several new fighters.

 

As for the question of being unarmed:

- A lot of late 1915 aircraft had field modifications to carry flexibly-mounted guns (e.g. many German 'B-series').

- Some types had offensive flexibly mounted guns as field modifications (Albatros C.I)

- Some types had field modifications for fixed forward firing guns (Caudron G.IV, Morane-Saulnier L, R.A.F. F.E.2d)

 

In my opinion, the main issue with flexible offensive guns is the way gunner AI is modelled (going back to Rise of Flight)... it is very frustrating to watch the gunner 'aim to miss' (even when one has manoeuvred to give the gunner a perfect shot). However, that only really applies to the Albatros C.I, Aviatik, and the B.E.2c/d. The other aircraft I've listed have options for fixed guns.

 

Note: It appears at least Albatros C.I did have a fixed forward firing gun, but these aircraft appear to have been used by the navy as trials aircraft to test the gun synchroniser - there is no evidence they made it to the front (unlike the LVG C.II and Albatros C.III). Also, the B.E.2 did receive a forward firing gun in some late models, particularly the Belgian ones which used a different engine and the B.E.12 single-seat version (but those versions were too fast to really act as good opponents for the Fokker E.III).

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

With WWI aircraft most of the research required to do the interior needs to be done to model the exterior

 

Additionally, it was mentioned long ago that it takes much longer to build the FM than the cockpit, so you may as well just make it flyable if sufficient references exist. 

[Davesax1965]

Just noticed that in the picture of the Albatros C1 (which I've seen before in an Alex Imrie book) the overwing LMG is a Madsen with a 40 round box mag. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_machine_gun

 

Of course, crews strapped anything they could get onto their machines. We've got overwing Lewis guns as an option, be nice if other LMGs were modelled. Chauchats excepted, I hasten to add.

Although I don't fancy standing up in a cockpit to change a 40 round box magazine, to be honest. 😉 

[Flashy]

On 1/11/2025 at 11:50 AM, Davesax1965 said:

Just noticed that in the picture of the Albatros C1 (which I've seen before in an Alex Imrie book) the overwing LMG is a Madsen with a 40 round box mag. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_machine_gun

 

Of course, crews strapped anything they could get onto their machines. We've got overwing Lewis guns as an option, be nice if other LMGs were modelled. Chauchats excepted, I hasten to add.

Although I don't fancy standing up in a cockpit to change a 40 round box magazine, to be honest. 😉 

Well spotted! Must've been quite a mission to try change that magazine in flight.. and only 40 rounds.. not great..

Edited January 13 by Flashy

[Davesax1965]

On 13/01/2025 at 09:23, Flashy said:

Well spotted! Must've been quite a mission to try change that magazine in flight.. and only 40 rounds.. not great..

Hi Flashy, and that was the biggest magazine you could fit on a Madsen.

They're a weird LMG, produced in a variety of calibres for export use. From what I remember, the receiver unfolded like a book. Mind you, the light machinegun was a fairly new concept and there weren't that many to choose from. 

I should expect our Great Grandads merely strapped what was available onto the top wing and then crossed their fingers. 

One LMG I think we can do without is the Chauchat, (below) just one look at the magazine should give you a hint that it was designed by French madmen in a smoky room.

A Hotchkiss would be quite interesting - seen these fitted to some aircraft. Weirdly, they had a non disintegrating metal cartridge strip which was fed in from the right side of the receiver - fire about 40 or 50 rounds, feed a new strip in and re-cock the weapon. 

Mind you, that's not as bad as one Italian heavy machine gun which unloaded a round from the belt, fired it, and then placed the empty cartridge back in the belt for the sake of neatness, mechanical complexity and cost of manufacture. 😉

One non LMG I'd love to see in the game is a C96 Mauser with shoulder stock. Shot one of these many years ago and it was, simply put, the nicest automatic pistol I've ever fired. And I've fired most pistols manufactured from, say, 1847 on. (Long story. 😉 )

One thing about the Mauser is that if someone you don't know hands you one, fire the first shot with your arm canted sideways, as it's possible to strip these and reassemble them with the locking piece the wrong way around. This causes the slide to pop out and hit you in the face. But, as ever, I digress. 😉