Ares Games
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: AEG N.I night bomber stats

  1. #1

    Lightbulb AEG N.I night bomber stats

    Last week I ordered a brand new reducedAircraftFactory AEG N.I from Shapeways. When I say brand new, I mean it's still in beta and apparently not even printed by the designer yet... so my fingers are crossed.

    Why did I buy this when I'm Brit-focused? Because. That's why. (And I've been reading several books about WWI night aviation recently, perhaps that had something to do with it...!)

    Now of course, we need to nail some stats together for it. I'm happy with the majority of the following proposal, though I would appreciate input and comments (and especially about the base size and figure for hit points).

    Manoeuvre deck: XD
    Maximum airspeed of 143kph (89mph in real money), falling just outside of the "130-140kph" XD category. As the extensive wingspan certainly limited manoeuvrability, knocking down to the the XD deck seems a better option than working out a new or different deck.

    Damage types: -/B and bombs
    Single MG for gunner/observer, plus 300kg bomb load (mainly 6 x 50kg)
    The rear MG would have a rear arc of 180°, or possibly slightly less (will be able to better judge when I see the model). The rear gun position is quite snug and partially under the upper wing. TBD.

    Damage points: 15-17
    Using the statistics reference sheet, 1917 airframes list 15-16 points for medium construction, with 17 for solidly built ones. The N.I was based on the AEG C.IV (which is also so far without stats), with the main difference being a greater wingspan (and bracing above the upper wing cabane struts as the early prototypes of the extended wings had experienced bending). In general terms, how robust were the AEG airframes in comparison to contemporary planes for which we already have stats? The AEG C.IV (and thus the N.I) were mainly metal-framed rather than wood, so I'm inclined towards the higher end of the range here.

    Climb rate: 7
    10 mins to reach 1000m, 23 mins to reach 2000m, 50 mins to reach 3000m. The first two figures definitely fall within the limits of climb rate 7, with the third being just about on the border of 6 and 7.

    Max altitude: 9-10
    The prototype without the braced wings has a ceiling of 3900m listed; altitude band 9, just under altitude 10. Stats for an N.I with the braced wings that had been converted to civilian use post war list the ceiling as 4000m which is exactly the lower limit for altitude 10. So there's argument for 9 or 10.

    Availability: Nov 1917 onwards
    Only 37 were built. The first two were delivered at the very end of October 1917, with the greatest numbers operating from December 1917 to April 1918. Towards the end of the war a few were also used as advanced trainers.

    Base size: Fighter (see explanatory post 5 below)
    The below paragraph was the 'working' reasoning; but input from Andrea has answered the question; see post 5 below in this thread. My original paragraph remains for reference.
    In the absence of a clear indication from Ares, this could be a bit of a grey area. It's a bomber, so arguably it should go on a bomber size base. But it's not much bigger really than a DH4 which goes on a fighter base (AEG N.I wingspan of 50', compared to the DH4 wingspan of 43' 4"). Is the size the main factor in choosing the base, or is role a factor too? The Short Bomber thoroughly deserves the bomber size base with a monstrous wingspan of 84' even though, like the AEG, it is a single-engine two-seater). The Caudron G.4 has a very similar wingspan (56' 5") to the AEG, but since it is a twin engined plane it's a much clearer argument to assign it a bomber-size base. I lean towards the bomber base for the N.I as, even though it is a single-engined two seater it was designed to be a dedicated bomber and thus (taking the size into account too) should be based as a bomber (for the same reason, effectively as the far-from-short Short Bomber).

    So, in summary I suggest the following starting point for stats, and would appreciate input to fine tune them.
    Manoeuvre deck: XD
    Damage types: -/B and bombs (rear arc standard 120°, see posts 15 & 16 below)
    Damage points: 17 (see notes above)
    Climb rate: 7
    Max altitude: 9 (see notes above)
    Availability: Nov 1917 onwards
    Base size: Fighter


    References:
    Herris, J., 2012. Nachtflugzeug! German N-Types of WWI. San Jose: Aeronaut Books
    Gary, Peter, and Thetford, Owen, 1970. German Aircraft of the First World War. 2nd edition. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
    Last edited by Prodromoi; 12-03-2015 at 04:59. Reason: Updated with results to questions

  2. #2

    Default

    Looks good to me Alex - you could go either way on the basing as it's only a slightly enlarged C class type - but it is a slightly bigger target !

    "He is wise who watches"

  3. #3

    Default

    Fighter base, otherwise agree. But I put the Caudron on a fighter base too. Both are dwarfed by the Br 14.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Fighter base, otherwise agree. But I put the Caudron on a fighter base too. Both are dwarfed by the Br 14.
    No, the Caudron G.4 has a greater wingspan than the Breguet 14B.2 (16.88m / 55' 4" to the BR14's 14.36m / 47' 1")

    References:
    Taylor, J. and Jane, F. (1990). Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I. New York, N.Y.: Military Press.
    Munson, K. (2012). Bombers 1914-1919. London: Bounty Books.

  5. #5

    Default

    Well, having heard back from Andrea on this, we've got an answer. And also opened a potential new can of worms too! Bear in mind that this is advice and information from a chat with Andrea rather than from Ares.

    These are the pertinent points from Andrea:

    • Wingspan is what determines the base size of planes (number of engines is not a factor).
    • The huge planes with wingspans of 29 metres and upwards (Staaken, Felixstowe, HP O/400, etc) have the biggest base (8cm x 11cm approx).
    • The big planes with wingspans of 22.2 to 24 metres (Caproni Ca.3, Gotha G.V, Friedrichshafen G.III, etc) have the medium size base (6.8cm x 8.8cm, exactly twice the width of a 'normal' fighter card).
    • Planes with a smaller wingspan up to an undefined maximum, a bit larger than the 14.36m span Bregeut 14 (including the 14.55m FE2 and the 15.24m AEG N.I) use the 'normal' fighter base. The exact maximum has not been defined.
    • Furthermore Andrea mentions the potential of a fourth base size (one and a half 'normal' cards wide) for those planes with a wingspan of approximately 17-18m (such as the Farman F.40 and the Caudron G.4), but since this base size was declined by Ares it's likely that such planes will have to go down to the 'normal' fighter size base or up to the medium (Gotha etc) size base, although which is not yet decided upon.


    This does of course leave some grey areas - in addition to planes like the Farman F.40 that fall between fighter and medium bomber, but also planes with a wingspan of 24-29 metres (if indeed some exist, I have yet to check) that fall between the medium 'Gotha' base and the large 'Staaken' base.

    Andrea was kind enough to clarify that the AEG N.l (span of 15.24m) would use a fighter size base. (And thus would have the greatest wingspan currently confirmed to do so.)

    Many thanks again to Andrea for his helpful and swift input on this.
    Last edited by Prodromoi; 11-10-2015 at 15:15. Reason: Typo

  6. #6

    Default

    That's some useful gen Alex, at least we now have a steer on how things are worked out even if it's not an exact science yet !

    "He is wise who watches"

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    No, the Caudron G.4 has a greater wingspan than the Breguet 14B.2 (16.88m / 55' 4" to the BR14's 14.36m / 47' 1")
    True - but the overall volume is much smaller.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-11-11 14.35.47.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	143.1 KB 
ID:	180846Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-11-11 14.36.05.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	101.8 KB 
ID:	180847

    In comparison with some others - some definite small bases, some definite large :

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-11-11 14.37.05.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	112.1 KB 
ID:	180848Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2015-11-11 14.37.30.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	115.0 KB 
ID:	180849

  8. #8

    Default

    Taking Andrea's advice....

    Go by wingspan.
    But in boundary cases (smaller than Gotha, larger than Br14), 2 seaters go small, 3+ seaters go large.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    planes with a wingspan of 24-29 metres (if indeed some exist, I have yet to check)
    As an example, the Short Bomber (25,61 meters). There are more, as the German SSW D.I, but at the moment I hve none with an extensive use in mind.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    As an example, the Short Bomber (25,61 meters).
    Which of course, I should have known. I don't think in metres so I didn't make the obvious connection...!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5D2_0008048ab RED.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	180863

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20D_0007326ab RED.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	64.2 KB 
ID:	180861

  11. #11

    Default

    Well, Mr Shapeways delivered the new plane today (along with some other bits and pieces) and very nice it is too - a lovely piece of 3D modelling. If it's an accurate model (of which I have no doubt) then I'd say that the gunner has - like the Short Bomber - a 180° rear arc with normal blind spot (which makes things nice and easy!).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_MG_7415 ab red.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	97.8 KB 
ID:	182182

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_MG_7418 ab red.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	96.8 KB 
ID:	182183

    And here's one to show some scale...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	_MG_7421 ab red.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	143.7 KB 
ID:	182184

  12. #12

  13. #13

    Default

    Very nice Alex - I've added the gen on basing to the Rule FAQ page, thanks for that

    "He is wise who watches"

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Very nice Alex - I've added the gen on basing to the Rule FAQ page, thanks for that
    Great idea. Glad it helps.

  15. #15

    Default

    A new quandry has occured to me - the rear firing arc. From the position of the gunner's position, it would seem entirely logical that the rear arc would be 180° - exactly like a down-sized version of the Short Bomber card as it appear in Flight of the Giants. And if it were on a medium bomber base I wouldn't have thought twice about it... But...

    What about the 'normal' planes on escort/fighter bases that have a rear gunner? The rear arc of most of them (special cases excluded) is approximately 120°, where the position of the gunner might suggest that it be closer to 180°. Of course, the 90° (ish) arc of the forward gun is an abstraction for game purposes (to account for the manoeuvrability of the plane in aiming rather than the actual gun), and I rationalise the rear arc in much the same way - the jinks and dodges of an escort plane may dissuade the observer from aiming too close to their own wings for fear of an unexpected manoeuvre ending up causing his aim to hit the wings. Plus it's a lot easier - rules and production wise - for (almost) all two-seaters to have the same firing arc!

    Which brings me to ponder - should the AEG N.I have the 180° that would seem obvious from its design? Does the slow manoeuvre deck (XD) make a difference and thus identify it as a different kind of two-seater from the faster and nippier Rumpler, DH.4 etc?

    Or should it - because it's going on an escort size base - be given the 'standard' 120° (ish) rear fire arc that is the norm for most two-seaters?

    Why do slow planes (all bombers with XA to XD decks, considering official releases) seem to have their firing arcs carefully and faithfully reproduced on their plane cards rather than being abstracted as with the faster and more manoeuvrable planes? Rhetorical question - this is surely a game balancing issue as much as giving the planes their own 'character' and profile. There are quite a few unofficial 'early war' escort size planes using an X-deck already, mostly using an escort base with a normal forward arc.

    A bit of a forehead-creaser - suggestions welcomed: 180° or 120° rear arc, and why?
    Last edited by Prodromoi; 11-28-2015 at 04:38. Reason: Typo

  16. #16

    Default

    Andrea would have to weigh in on the two seater rear firing arc and why it is narrower then most bomber arcs for rear gunners. If I had to take a guess beyond game balance, I'd say that in the smaller "scout" sized two seaters, there as not a lot of room in the gunner's compartment to move around that much. They were designed to cover the rear of the plane, not the sides. If the enemy was at the sides, it was the pilots job to bring the rear gun to bear by maneuvering. With bombers, the pilots job was to flight pretty much straight and level to and from the target. The gunners compartments in these larger aircraft could be a little more spacious to allow the gunners to defend more to the sides.

    This is of course all subject to each plane being unique... and that is where game balance (and production) probably comes in. I would say if it is on a small base, it should have the normal two seater arc.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    ... I'd say that in the smaller "scout" sized two seaters, there as not a lot of room in the gunner's compartment to move around that much.

    ...The gunners compartments in these larger aircraft could be a little more spacious to allow the gunners to defend more to the sides.
    Very good point - this hadn't occurred to me. I'll be needing to buy a new two-seater base from the 'Drome shop then, I think!

  18. #18

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    Damage points: 15-17
    Using the statistics reference sheet, 1917 airframes list 15-16 points for medium construction, with 17 for solidly built ones. The N.I was based on the AEG C.IV (which is also so far without stats), with the main difference being a greater wingspan (and bracing above the upper wing cabane struts as the early prototypes of the extended wings had experienced bending). In general terms, how robust were the AEG airframes in comparison to contemporary planes for which we already have stats? The AEG C.IV (and thus the N.I) were mainly metal-framed rather than wood, so I'm inclined towards the higher end of the range here.
    Everything I've read about the A.E.G.'s says they were very robust (and well-loved by their crews because of it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    Availability: Nov 1917 onwards
    Only 37 were built. The first two were delivered at the very end of October 1917, with the greatest numbers operating from December 1917 to April 1918. Towards the end of the war a few were also used as advanced trainers.
    Actually 37 were counted at the front on 28 Feb 1918, and I think that does not include all the ones that were dribbled out in ones and twos to various units and mixed with C.IV's in the preceding months. Two orders of 100 aircraft each were placed, the first in December 1916 (for C.IVn's, which were later redesignated N.I's) and the second in November 1917. I have to think that at least the first order was fully completed or there wouldn't have been a second, giving us more than 100 and up to 200 N.I's built.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    ....Using the statistics reference sheet, 1917 airframes list 15-16 points for medium construction, with 17 for solidly built ones. The N.I was based on the AEG C.IV (which is also so far without stats),
    Somehow missed this comment before Alex - there are stats for the AEG C.IV in the UoSC Stats doc -
    Shows as: G* deck; B/B guns; 15 Dam; 10 Alt; 5 Climb.

    "He is wise who watches"

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReducedAirFact View Post
    Actually 37 were counted at the front on 28 Feb 1918, and I think that does not include all the ones that were dribbled out in ones and twos to various units and mixed with C.IV's in the preceding months. Two orders of 100 aircraft each were placed, the first in December 1916 (for C.IVn's, which were later redesignated N.I's) and the second in November 1917. I have to think that at least the first order was fully completed or there wouldn't have been a second, giving us more than 100 and up to 200 N.I's built.
    Thanks Daryl, you're absolutely right. The first reference I found referred to the 37, and I think that was a misinterpretation of the Frontbestand. Other resources I found detailed the two productions runs, so the 100-200 is accurate. I just forgot to update my original post!

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Somehow missed this comment before Alex - there are stats for the AEG C.IV in the UoSC Stats doc -
    Shows as: G* deck; B/B guns; 15 Dam; 10 Alt; 5 Climb.
    I didn't find these either! I can see it now, thanks. I would have used the C.IV stats as a starting point, but I'm still pretty happy with the ones I've interpreted from the data.

    G* vs. XD. The N.I used a less powerful engine (10hp less then the C.IV, giving the N.I a listed (ie. factory figure) speed 15 kph slower than the C.IV. I would expect the larger wings would have made the N.I a bit less nimble too.

    B/B vs. -/B. The pilot's forward facing gun on the N.I was removed to save weight, and was considered an unnecessary feature for a night bomber.

    15 vs. 17 damage. This is the one that's hardest to be certain of. The AEG (C.IV and N.I) were unusual for their time because of their mainly metal frames which certainly increased their strength (see Daryl's observation above). The stat tool sheet from the downloads section recommends that a 'solid' airframe would be expected to have 14-15 pts up to early 1917, or 17 by mid 1917. The C.IV (presumably the fuselage strength between the C.IV and N.I were practically the same) was introduced in 1916 (and that same document denotes a figure of 15-16 pts for a 'solid' airframe). So I'd say a figure of 16 is certainly acceptable, based on this. Whether the AEG is sufficiently above-average to justify 17 points - hard to say, and open to debate. I rather feel the C.IV is undersold by the 15 points quoted in the stats document!

    Altitude 10 vs. 9. See my initial notes - the maximum altitude of the N.I was literally the minimum to qualify for level 10 (4000m) - and since level 10 extends up to 4600m it seems logical to cap the altitude at 4000m - thus level 9 (going up to 3999m effectively!).

    Climb rate 5 vs. 7. The documented climb figures for the N.I absolutely correlate with climb rates 7 in two instances, and are on the border of 6 and 7 in a third instance. The less powerful engine and added weight of a bomb load surely contributed to this, even with the larger wings. The Windsock figures for the C.IV certainly fall within the parameters of climb rate 5, but the N.I figures suggest 7.

    In summary - I'm confident in the stats I've derived with the possible exception of the hit points; depending on how tough the AEGs were, 16 or 17 seems appropriate. (And possibly the C.IV figure of 15 might benefit from review.)
    Last edited by Prodromoi; 12-09-2015 at 02:20. Reason: Typo

  23. #23

    Default

    I would not disagree with what you've worked out - just wanted to point out there are stats for the C.IV in case they were of use to you, which clearly they were for comparison purposes.
    Re the Damage - as a point of reference from the Stats sheet the following types have 17 Pt damage -
    Breguet 14 A2
    Breguet 14 B2
    Albatros C.XV
    Junkers CL.I

    These have 16:
    Halberstadt CL.II
    Hannover CL.III
    Bristol F2B
    Salmson 2A-2
    SPAD XVI
    Halberstadt C.V
    Halberstadt CL.IV
    Halberstadt CL.IV
    LVG C.V
    LVG C.VI

    These have 15:
    AEG C.IV
    Albatros C.V/17
    Albatros C.VII
    Albatros C.X
    Albatros C.XII
    Armstrong Whitworth FK8

    Not sure the Whether the extended wings of the N.I would make it stronger or the same as the C.IV if the fuselage is pretty much the same but I'd say go with what you feel is right. It is a later model after all.

    "He is wise who watches"

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    I would not disagree with what you've worked out - just wanted to point out there are stats for the C.IV in case they were of use to you, which clearly they were for comparison purposes.
    Oh, I realise that Dave!

    The more information that can be compared, the better. Would the additional wingspan affect the resilience of the plane? Arguable - I think the fuselage structure is the important factor here, with both the C.IV and the N.I being tougher than average for their period. If the wings are larger then I suppose that can withstand having more holes shot in them once the bomb racks are empty- but if laden with bombs the plane surely needs all the wing it can get!

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromoi View Post
    ...Would the additional wingspan affect the resilience of the plane? Arguable...
    Certainly is - when the N.I wings were first load tested they failed & had to be reinforced with a trestle structure fitted to the wing centre section, fore and aft as can be seen on the model - what if this gets badly shot up ...?
    Unlikely I suppose, I have no idea how many, if any, they lost and what the circumstances were but could be something to consider.

    "He is wise who watches"



Similar Missions

  1. What stats would fit a Kate Torpedo Bomber?
    By AZTiger98 in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-08-2015, 10:50
  2. Rare chance to capture Halifax bomber at night
    By QB Fox in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 13:41
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2013, 07:23
  4. Possible night-fighter vs bomber scenario
    By Biggles downunder in forum WGF: Mission Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 01:11
  5. WGF Italian Night Bomber - Caproni Ca.4
    By jbmacek in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 01:00

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •