Updated 1/144 aircraft and stats in the file section

[Guntruck]

The Unofficial Stats Cttee (what's left of it) has risen from its lethargy (OK, Zoe guilted us into it ) and updated the stats with the latest available aircraft, and come up with some numbers to go with them.

The Hannover CL.II, Fokker E.V, Macchi M5 and Nieuport 28 stats tweaked and moved to official stats are these are imminent(ish) from Ares. New aircraft are Caudron G6, Nieuport 12bis and 12Beardmore, Paul Schmitt 7, SPAD XVI, Albatros C.V/16 and C.V/17, Zeppelin Staaken R.VI, FBA Type H, Fe2d, Martinsyde S1, Anatra D Anade and Anatra DS Anasal.

Here Be Data

[matt56]

Thanks for doing this, Steve et al!!! They really are helpful - your work (USC) is greatly appreciated. There is SO MUCH useful information in this document.

All the best, and keep up the great work!
Matt

[ReducedAirFact]

Nicely done! Since I designed a few of the new entries, it's nice to see anything that makes the a little more usable, so I appreciate the work.

[gully_raker]

Well done committee & with not one bit of input from me!

[grumpybear]

Thank you guys and gals so much for what you do, I for one really appreciate your efforts.

[Bruce]

Great work Steve and the remaining committee members. Like "grumpybear", I too really appreciate your efforts.
I'm specially glad that you've added the new "W" manoeuvre Deck for the Hannover CL.III (I don't have it yet), albeit I've no clue why it (the Hannover) deserves a 90 degree R and L. How is it that a heavy, partially-armoured 2-seater can be more agile than a "Biff" or an Albatros D.III? ... but who am I.
HOWEVER, it's good to have official stats and decks (not to mention the marvelous minis) in order for us all to have an official and overall reasonable starting point for gaming ... which inevitably leads to discussion and use of a few House Rules which in turn makes us all feel even better about our game. This great game (from my gaming-first perspective) is nicely conducive to "tinkering" without upsetting the whole "apple cart", and it obviously has also captured and retained the interest and affection of the historians, modellers and collectors among us.
Thanks again.

[Zoe Brain]

Thank you guys and gals so much for what you do, I for one really appreciate your efforts.

Just as I really appreciate the efforts of all of the talented model designers who keep us so busy.
We've been a bit slack - this is the first new release for nearly a year, and there's a few aircraft that deserved to have stats done for them long before now.

This will always be a work in progress - we've changed a few of the service dates for example to reflect new information. All it takes is for us to find an obscure diary entry from Pilot Officer Prune that he downed an old obsolete Belescu C-XII on 7th July 1917 for us to change the Belescu C-XII's "out of service" date from 17Q2 to 17Q3.

Similarly, even if few aircraft of a particular type were "at the front" - often only 1 or 2 - if they shot an enemy down, then we may have to move the date "in service" to the previous quarter, despite the fact that they hadn't been officially handed over for operational service yet.

The dates of service are for the Western Front mainly. We keep on finding anomalies - the Martinsyde S1 had been removed from active service in France by 15Q3, but was just coming in to front line use in Palestine in 15Q3. The DH2 last saw combat in Palestine in 17Q4 or 18Q1 (returned to depot Jan 1918). And of course in the Wild Wild East anything that flew would be used, though air-to-air combats were rare except in a few areas - where more modern types were the norm.

As regards the new official aircraft -Andrea had better data than we did on the Hannover IIIa. He also had the ability to add a new deck, something we can't do.

His judgment regarding the Macchi M5's maneuverability is based on Italian first-hand sources too.

The E.V - that's a judgment call. We're all operating from the same data, but whether to simulate the Fokker E.V's terrible Quality Assurance by reducing its damage capacity, or have a special "wing falls off" house rule is a matter of taste. Andrea decided to go with the latter. The later models (D.VIII) were stronger, and in postwar Polish and Russian service, had superior lubricant, engines, and fuel. There was considerable debate about how to best simulate this one (as there is about the Sopwith Pup). We had the same problem with the Sopwith Triplane - the D deck really didn't fit, and the new U deck for it is a great improvement.

The N28 - no change.


Any model designer (I'lm looking at you Daryl) who puts out a new aircraft - please PM me as otherwise it may fall through the cracks.

[zenlizard]

It's a lot of work, and those of us in the community appreciate it.

[Teaticket]

Your work is greatly appreciated! All my Shapeways planes can fly because of what you all do. Thanks you all so much!

[Jager]

I'm specially glad that you've added the new "W" manoeuvre Deck for the Hannover CL.III (I don't have it yet), albeit I've no clue why it (the Hannover) deserves a 90 degree R and L. How is it that a heavy, partially-armoured 2-seater can be more agile than a "Biff" or an Albatros D.III? ... but who am I.

I'm not sure why you think it's heavy and partially armored. The fuselage is ply-covered, but no different than any of the Albatrosses, and it's rather small for a 2-seater. It's agility was commented on by both sides.
Karl

[flash]

Well done chaps & Chapess', records updated, thanks for all your efforts to keep us flying straight and level !

[Zoe Brain]

I'm not sure why you think it's heavy and partially armored. The fuselage is ply-covered, but no different than any of the Albatrosses, and it's rather small for a 2-seater. It's agility was commented on by both sides.
Karl

As was its toughness - it was thought initially by the Entente to be armoured because of this.
One took on 12 SPAD XIIIs, shooting down 4 of them, then continued its artillery spotting mission.
It could, under the right circumstances, turn inside a Camel.

[fast.git]

As was its toughness - it was thought initially by the Entente to be armoured because of this.
One took on 12 SPAD XIIIs, shooting down 4 of them, then continued its artillery spotting mission.
It could, under the right circumstances, turn inside a Camel.

An outstanding addition to the Kaiser's (and my) aerodrome... can't wait!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Thanks once more to my Stats Committed for their sterling work.
As I have said before, it really is a mammoth task that I never envisaged when I asked for volunteers to take it on.
I really don't know how I sleep at night.
Cheers you folks.
Ah! Yes now I remember.
Rob.

[Bruce]

I stand corrected about the agility of the Hannover CL.III; I "spoke" before I checked my data files - just a little lazy I suspect. Apologies to all.
The Hannover CL.III was significantly lighter and smaller than the Biff, and, yes indeed, I found 2 references to its surprising agility especially at lower altitudes.
It's good to be corrected ... keeps one humble and reinforces the prudence of checking ones facts before "speaking" ... hope it isn't necessary more than once a year.
Thanks Karl and Zoe.

[fast.git]

I stand corrected about the agility of the Hannover CL.III...

There is more the stats committee has forgotten about these things than I have yet known... you're in good company!

[csadn]

This will always be a work in progress - we've changed a few of the service dates for example to reflect new information. All it takes is for us to find an obscure diary entry from Pilot Officer Prune that he downed an old obsolete Belescu C-XII on 7th July 1917 for us to change the Belescu C-XII's "out of service" date from 17Q2 to 17Q3.

Assuming, of course, PO Prune didn't mistake something else for the Belescu C-XII.... >;)

[Flying Helmut]

May I add my thanks to the Stats Committee - sterling work chaps!

[Zoe Brain]

As I have said before, it really is a mammoth task that I never envisaged when I asked for volunteers to take it on.
Rob.

There were what, 30 aircraft - mainly SRAM in delicate and fragile resin, or Skytrex/Reviresco in heavy metal, both of which could never survive the mishandling you get in gaming - when you asked us initially. A few Shapeways by Kampfflieger, the only designer at the time, that showed real promise.

It, er, took off from there. Nobody could really have foreseen that we'd have to deal with close to 200 (185+) aircraft and growing.


By all means keep the compliments coming. It's nice to know that our work has been useful. Thanks!

[Doug]

Thanks All much appreciated, the stats and your hard work

[ReducedAirFact]

As for the Savoia-Pomilio SP.1, which the spreadsheet says "only one built", I think there were two planes that gained the SP.1 designation. From "French Aircraft of the First World War":

A total of 601 M.F.11s (which were known as Farman 1914s in Italy) were built under license by [various firms]....The Fiat-built machines were powered by the 100hp Fiat A.10 engines and carried the designation F.5b... The S.P.1 was essentially a license-built M.F.11. The SP2 was also similar to the standard M.F. 11 but was more streamlined for better aerodynamics and strengthened so it could carry the more powerful 260hp A.12 engine."

"The SIA SP.2 and SP.3" (Windsock Datafile 128) says the prototype twin-engined SP.4 was retroactively designated the SP.1, (so there was probably only one of those).

So I think the SP.1 designation was used for both the license-built M.F.11's (601 built) [the one I modeled] and the prototype SP.4 (1 built).

Maybe someone has a reference that can clear up the SP.1 confusion?

[Zoe Brain]

As for the Savoia-Pomilio SP.1, which the spreadsheet says "only one built", I think there were two planes that gained the SP.1 designation. From "French Aircraft of the First World War":

A total of 601 M.F.11s (which were known as Farman 1914s in Italy) were built under license by [various firms]....The Fiat-built machines were powered by the 100hp Fiat A.10 engines and carried the designation F.5b... The S.P.1 was essentially a license-built M.F.11. The SP2 was also similar to the standard M.F. 11 but was more streamlined for better aerodynamics and strengthened so it could carry the more powerful 260hp A.12 engine."

"The SIA SP.2 and SP.3" (Windsock Datafile 128) says the prototype twin-engined SP.4 was retroactively designated the SP.1, (so there was probably only one of those).

So I think the SP.1 designation was used for both the license-built M.F.11's (601 built) [the one I modeled] and the prototype SP.4 (1 built).

Maybe someone has a reference that can clear up the SP.1 confusion?

Source https://www.scribd.com/doc/228037183...on-Classics-20

"Only the prototype of the SP1 was built, by SIA in Turin, but it was to serve as a development aircraft for further modification"

Basically, SIA made stock standard MF-11s. They played around with modifications, coming up with the SP.1 as an intermediate stage to the new SP.2. They produced 300 of those, then another 350 SP.3s, then 150 of the twin-engined SP.4

From A CENTURY OF FLYING by Gregori Alegi

The S.P. family biplanes, designed by Savoja and Pomilio within DTAM, followed the Farman formula with increased dimensions, weight and power. The performance increase offered by the prototypes was unfortunately cancelled out by the long delay between the first deliveries in August 1916 and achieving initial operating capability in February 1917. By then the twin boom observation aircraft had been made obsolete by the rapid evolution of fuselage type fighters.

Next version will have the SP.2 and SP.3. Just determining out-of-service dates and climb rates now.

[Zoe Brain]

[ReducedAirFact]

Thanks Zoe! That clears it up nicely. (And I'll change the designations on my Shapeways Italian-built M.F.11.)

I find these early aviation pioneers and designers to be fascinating -- they were truly visionary.

[Zoe Brain]

You may find these pages interesting -
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aviostoria/A/AER/sp-4.htm
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aviostoria/A/AER/sp-3.htm

This one isn't an SP-4, but a predecessor (unbuilt), a 2-engine SP-2

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/aviostoria...20bimotore.htm

[Flying Helmut]

I find these early aviation pioneers and designers to be fascinating -- they were truly visionary.

Or in this case, ahead of his time: the article has him born October 8th 1997 !

[Mau Fox]

Updated 1/144 aircraft and stats in the file section

There is really a huge amount of work in here. Big thanks to all of those involved! .

[Zoe Brain]

In any case... this gives everyone an idea of what kind of research has gone into the unofficial stats - and how much work the amazingly talented 3D designers put in to get the data before they even start making the model.

Fortunately its something of a team effort. We all help each other.

[Mau Fox]

Great infos about the Pomilio's here Zoe! I would say as usual.

A little trivia about the Savoia-Pomilio S.P.2:

Although the S.P.2 estabilished the world altitude record on 17 December 1917 reaching 22,965 feet (7000 meters), the config with the observer seating in the nose of the nacelle gave the pilot a blind spot, thus this plane was not favored by the crew so that often the airmen joked about the name of the aircraft stating that the letters S.P. was meant to be Siamo Perduti (We are lost) and that S.P.2 stood for Sepoltura Per 2 (Grave for two).

Nevertheless, more than 400 S.P.2 were built and remained in service well deep into 1918.

Mau

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Or in this case, ahead of his time: the article has him born October 8th 1997 !

Nice to know I'm not the only one who makes typos like that Tim.
I assume that someone proof read that article.
Notwithstanding, it is a very good bit of source material.
Thank you once again Zoe.
Rob.

[Guntruck]

Just made a few tweaks to some of the slower aircraft - XA, XB, XC, XD - and 'disarmed' the Caudron G3.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...o=file&id=2067

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Thanks Gunners.
Rob.

[csadn]

Although the S.P.2 estabilished the world altitude record on 17 December 1917 reaching 22,965 feet (7000 meters), the config with the observer seating in the nose of the nacelle gave the pilot a blind spot, thus this plane was not favored by the crew so that often the airmen joked about the name of the aircraft stating that the letters S.P. was meant to be Siamo Perduti (We are lost) and that S.P.2 stood for Sepoltura Per 2 (Grave for two).

Right up there with the Douglas A3D Skywarrior -- it had no ejection seats, so wags claimed the designator meant "All 3 Dead".

[Jager]

A little trivia about the Savoia-Pomilio S.P.2:

Although the S.P.2 estabilished the world altitude record on 17 December 1917 reaching 22,965 feet (7000 meters), the config with the observer seating in the nose of the nacelle gave the pilot a blind spot, thus this plane was not favored by the crew so that often the airmen joked about the name of the aircraft stating that the letters S.P. was meant to be Siamo Perduti (We are lost) and that S.P.2 stood for Sepoltura Per 2 (Grave for two).

Mau

Right up there with the Douglas A3D Skywarrior -- it had no ejection seats, so wags claimed the designator meant "All 3 Dead".

Or the LaGG-3's nickname: LAkirovannie Garantirovanny Grob ; " varnished guaranteed coffin"
Karl

[Zoe Brain]

Right up there with the Douglas A3D Skywarrior -- it had no ejection seats, so wags claimed the designator meant "All 3 Dead".

I know Amanda Simpson, the chief test pilot for that aircraft in a missile development program for Raytheon. She's currently the Executive Director of the Army Office of Energy Initiatives. Small world, eh?

BTW - the Caudron G3 was sometimes fitted with an MG - but fixed downwards firing for ground attack, no air-to-air capability. It took us a while to make sense of conflicting sources, but it was eventually clear that it never carried guns that could be used air-to-air, so we classed it along with the other, later ground attack aircraft with fixed downwards firing guns as ground attack capability only.

[spindoc]

Hi all -

It seems the stats given for the Caudron R.11 are a bit off.

The dates are given as 18 Q3 to 18 Q4. But the first unit to receive them was R 46, which was re-equipped with them in Feb '18. By April there were 34 of them in existence, and units were created with them in April, May and July.

Also, the Maneuver Deck is given as B, which doesn't make any sense. The R.11 was a large 3-seat "fighter" which provided close-in escort for day bombers (like Breugeut 14's), ideally accompanying them all the way to the target. They operated not because of maneuverability, but due to their considerable firepower (when available, SPAD fighters were used to provide top cover for mixed Bregeut 14 and Caudron R.11 formations). So a Maneuver Deck like H would make more sense.

The Damage Type is given as (s) - does this mean "swivel"? The R.11 was armed with twin Lewis guns in the nose and in the rear fuselage, along with an additional gun below the nose position to enable the gunner to fire downward.

Another interesting facet of this plane was that later models were fitted with dual controls, so that if the pilot were wounded the observer could fly it.

Hopefully this info will lead to more accurate stats for this plane. Most of it comes from Davilla and Soltan's massive 1997 tome, French Aircraft of the First World War.

[Zoe Brain]

Hi all -

It seems the stats given for the Caudron R.11 are a bit off.

The dates are given as 18 Q3 to 18 Q4. But the first unit to receive them was R 46, which was re-equipped with them in Feb '18. By April there were 34 of them in existence, and units were created with them in April, May and July.

18Q1 then, if used operationally from Feb.

Also, the Maneuver Deck is given as B, which doesn't make any sense. The R.11 was a large 3-seat "fighter" which provided close-in escort for day bombers (like Breugeut 14's), ideally accompanying them all the way to the target. They operated not because of maneuverability, but due to their considerable firepower (when available, SPAD fighters were used to provide top cover for mixed Bregeut 14 and Caudron R.11 formations). So a Maneuver Deck like H would make more sense.

While they were used like that in the end, that was only after they'd been used in front of the bomber formations first, where immelmans etc were practiced. They were used more like a Brisfit than anything else - but it didn't work, enemy interceptors just evaded them. When used as YB-40s (gunships around the bomber formations) they were effective.

B is wrong though, S at best. And no firing with any guns in an immelman or immediately afterwards.

In WWI, bombers had a much greater range than did fighters. Escorts were often aircraft of the same type as the bombers/recon aircraft going "deep behind enemy lines". Deep meaning often no more than 20 miles. The escorts, not having the bombs or cameras, were more nippy.

Really, loaded bombers should have to do at least one stall every 3 cards.

The Damage Type is given as (s) - does this mean "swivel"? The R.11 was armed with twin Lewis guns in the nose and in the rear fuselage, along with an additional gun below the nose position to enable the gunner to fire downward.

s - special. Can't be expressed easily using a front narrow plus optional rear extended arc.

[Guntruck]

Hi all -

It seems the stats given for the Caudron R.11 are a bit off.

The dates are given as 18 Q3 to 18 Q4. But the first unit to receive them was R 46, which was re-equipped with them in Feb '18. By April there were 34 of them in existence, and units were created with them in April, May and July.

OK, I can confirm Q1 as the in-service date

Also, the Maneuver Deck is given as B, which doesn't make any sense. ....So a Maneuver Deck like H would make more sense.

No it wouldn't. H deck represents a lumbering inline engine aircraft. If you give them an H deck they wouldn't be able to keep up with the Br.14s they are supposed to be protecting! Given the size of the thing though I would be inclined to downgrade it to an S deck which gives it normal agility rather than good agility.

The Damage Type is given as (s) - does this mean "swivel"? The R.11 was armed with twin Lewis guns in the nose and in the rear fuselage, along with an additional gun below the nose position to enable the gunner to fire downward.

I think this should read A/A/(S) for A front guns/A rear guns/and the 'special' for the downward firing gun (plus a comment in the note column regarding the latter).

[spindoc]

While they were used like that in the end, that was only after they'd been used in front of the bomber formations first, where immelmans etc were practiced. They were used more like a Brisfit than anything else - but it didn't work, enemy interceptors just evaded them.

Yeah, Davilla and Soltan quote the commander of the First Air Division stating that the R.11's were initially given to it to serve as a "plane lookout service", watching for enemy formations and possibly engaging them ahead of the bomber formations.

Must've been quite a sight to see one of these beasts pulling a half loop!

I wonder about that nose gun firing down. Have you seen anything indicating that they were ever used in a ground attack role?

[spindoc]

If you give them an H deck they wouldn't be able to keep up with the Br.14s they are supposed to be protecting!

Oh yeah, of course! In that case S definitely makes more sense.

[Flying Helmut]

The 'H' deck is the same as for the DH4, WAY faster than the 'K' deck of the Breguets. It is the same speed as the fastest German fighters!

The 'S' deck speed is the same, but with the Immelman added.

[spindoc]

Since they contained far fewer flammable bits, shouldn't fire damage be disallowed on all-metal planes like the Junkers J.I, D.I and CL.I? And with the J.I's armored enclosure for the crew, engine and fuel tank, shouldn't that limit vulnerability to special hits from ground fire? I realize the J.I is rated as having 20 Damage Points to reflect its robustness, but it also seems some provision should be made for the special characteristics of all-metal construction.

[Bruce]

Bill, you have a point IMHO, but I'm not sure what a fair resolution should be. I doubt that it was impossible to set it on FIRE, but I'd think that at least it was 50% less likely to suffer FIRE, SMOKE, ENGINE and crew WOUNDS ... RUDDER JAMs too I suppose. You should feel free to create a simple HOUSE RULE; something like ... "The J.1 ignores the first occurrences of FIRE, ENGINE, SMOKE, CREW WOUNDS and LEFT and RIGHT RUDDER JAMs". Now that you have raised the topic, that's what I'm going to do if/when I run games involving the Junker J.1 and others like it. Now, FYI the Brits, somebody correct me if I'm wrong please, decided in 1918 to use SW Camels and even some SE5as in the ground-attack role ... unarmoured I suspect ... because they had so many of them ... sort of like they used the BE2c and RE8 way, way past their best before dates (until their supplies of them ran out I suspect). I love the British, my Grandad and Granny were from England too, but I just can't understand what appears to me to be a persistent disregard at the higher Military levels for the lives of their soldiers and aviators. 'nuff said.
Here in Ottawa, Canada at the national Air Museum we have the burnt-out "shell" of an original Junkers J.1. I was amazed at how solid it is; looks like much of it is 3/16" or thicker welded and bolted metal plate of some kind ... completely around the front, bottom and sides of the fuselage back to and including the gunner/observer). I served in the Canadian infantry for 12 years (1960's and 70's) and have some feel for how much metal could be penetrated by a then-modern 7.62 NATO-Standard round and reckon that few if any WWI rifle and light MG rounds would penetrate, but I am ready to be corrected on this point too. See ya ... Bruce.

[Jager]

I have come up with some house rules for the J.I for my Contact Patrol scenario. I need to get this stuff posted sometime
Here's the rules from the first game:

The CPAs are heavily armored aircraft, and have a degree of immunity from damage. The Sopwith Buffalo is not affected by fire special damage. It also ignores the first engine damage. Additionally, from below (including from its own altitude if the shooter has no climb tokens and the Buffalo does), it will ignore pilot/crew hits, smoke and engine damage.
The Junkers J.I is the same, but also ignores rugger jams.

[Bruce]

NOW, that's a HOUSE RULE for ya. Good on ya Karl.
I was not aware of the SW Buffalo at all; I will check it out. Is it possible that the British WWI higher-ups (including politicians) were not as derelict in their duty to their young men as I believe?
It was great to meet you at ORIGINS Karl; it makes a lot of good difference to have meet you and so many of your Ohio colleagues ... not to mention loads of other WoG gamers ... is Neil (Skafloc) an honorary Buckeye now?

[Jager]

NOW, that's a HOUSE RULE for ya. Good on ya Karl.
I was not aware of the SW Buffalo at all; I will check it out. Is it possible that the British WWI higher-ups (including politicians) were not as derelict in their duty to their young men as I believe?
It was great to meet you at ORIGINS Karl; it makes a lot of good difference to have meet you and so many of your Ohio colleagues ... not to mention loads of other WoG gamers ... is Neil (Skafloc) an honorary Buckeye now?

Well, they didn't get the Buffalo in action (by a few weeks IIRC); basically, you take a Sopwith Salamander (which is a Snipe with armor), cut it in half, and add 12-15' for the observer, but don't add a bigger engine The Junkers had the advantage of being all metal.
As I remember, smoke is basically damage to the oil or radiator; the fact that 2 smokes causes fire may relate to this. With both planes, the armor protected it from attacks from below.
As for Neil, well since he came, inhaled the air, ate the food, and drank the water (well, beer ), he's one of us.
Karl

[csadn]

Anyone who thinks "steel airplanes don't burn easily" has never seen the aftermath of a fire onboard one.

[Jager]

Certainly true; but compared to doped linen and wooden frames
Karl

[csadn]

Certainly true; but compared to doped linen and wooden frames
Karl

Wood and dope *catch* fire more easily, this is true. It would be more accurate to handle fire the way _Space:1889_'s ship-combat rules handled it: On a "fire" result, a steel ship gained one fire level, while a wooden sail-powered one gained *two*.

[spindoc]

Thanks for all the ideas for the Junkers J.I. I'm using one (for an infantry resupply mission) for the Historicon scenario I'll be running. For simplicity's sake I think I'll make it impervious to infantry fire (but not AA mg's), and immune to the first occurrence of each special hit.