The Unofficial Stats Committee Results

[Linz]

Deep inside Herr Oberst’s computer. In a dimly lit room surrounded by anodes, diodes, valves and the odd crystal set. Sit six intrepid aviator avatars huddled and chained to a packing case that is covered by the sacred Wings Of War scrolls.
The rustling of paper fills the room as the sacred scrolls are slowly opened to reveal their secrets. A hush falls over the small group as they gaze reverently at the Texts.
Then the Work begins and soon the rubbish bins is filled with reams of paper, First drafts/attempts at deciphering the codes hidden deep within the Sacred Text.
Then those Eureka moments as each of the stats systems are decoded. One by one they open and reveal their secret to our intrepid team.
Than just as the mission seems to be coming to an end a runner enters.
“sorry chaps and chapess but they want more revelations. The Shapeways Stats!”
Howls of protest erupt, They want what? They’ll want the Skytrex, Riviresco and SRAM Stats next.
The Runner sheepishly pulls another order from his bag “now that you mention it…….”
Our intrepid Sextet turn to the bookshelves, that hold the sacred books of knowledge. (Janes, Wiki etc.) They wipe the dust from them and open them . More codes to decipher. Mutter Mutter Mumble Mumble.
“Do you think he will let us out of here before Christmas?” a small voice says
“Maybe if we promise to return in the new year he might let us out” another quiet voice says.
“ONLY IF YOU GET IT FINISHED IN TIME” a gruff booming all encompassing voice replies.
‘Yes Herr Qberst” they meekly reply
Then finally they finish the last stat is completed, the Stats systems are finished.
The work is done.
Miraculously the chains fall to the ground, a stream of leds light a path. In the distance they can see their trusty aircraft.
Freedom they Cry as they emerge Red Eyed, Tired, almost bent double from the cramped conditions and from poring over the manuscripts.
They shuffle, rubbing their wrists to get circulation back into their hands, each to their own aircraft and take to the skies,
Each knowing they’ll meet on some other day!



To see the Revelations our intrepid band have put together please check the links below.

[petitbilbo]

Here is a little introduction on how it all began and how we did the deed:

Unofficial Aircraft Stats Committee.pdf

[petitbilbo]

Tools for Working out Stats.pdf

With the above PDF-document, you'll have most of the tools necessary to come to your own conclusions about any airplane's statistics.

Don't hesitate to check our own findings!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Please accept my heartfelt thanks for the vast amount of work done by the team on this project. If I had known just how onerous it was, i would have thought twice before suggesting you for the task. However, as you stepped manfully and womanfully up to the plate, i'm sure that the Oberst will show his gratitude in a way that only he can.
Once again thank you all for your efforts that were, and are, above the call of duty.
Rob.

[Oberst Hajj]

Tools for Working out Stats.pdf

With the above PDF-document, you'll have most of the tools necessary to come to your own conclusions about any airplane's statistics.

Don't hesitate to check our own findings!

Can you explain the Climb Rate table a little bit. What are the From and To times indicating for each altitude band?

[Zoe Brain]

Can you explain the Climb Rate table a little bit. What are the From and To times indicating for each altitude band?

Time in minutes to get to that altitude.

They were determined by looking at every single official aircraft, and putting in the resultant range of values, interpolating around gaps. For example, all official aircraft with a climb rate of 5 take between 4 mins and 7.4 mins to get to 1000m altitude, and between 31 min and 55 min to get to 5000m

Let's take a hypothetical aircraft.

Time to get to 1000m is reported to be 3.5 minutes.
That means it could have a climb rate of 2,3 or 4.

Time to get to 3000m is reported to be 9 mins exactly - that narrows it down to 2 or 3, because 4 climb aircraft take at least 12.5 minutes to get to that altitude.

Time to get to 5000m is reported as 18.75 minutes - that narrows it down to climb rate 2.

In cases where we still have multiple possibilities (say 3 or 4), we then look at combat reports, such as "The Refusenik A's manouverability was good, but the Blefescu D.XII could outclimb it". If the Blefescu D.XII has a climb rate of 4, then the Refusenik A must also have a climb rate of 4. It must be 3 or 4 from the table, and can't be better than a plane with a known climb rate of 4. So 4 it is.

[Oberst Hajj]

Thanks Zoe, that clears it up nicely.

[Guntruck]

And the official and unofficial stats are in the file section here

This of course is a "work in progress" to be updated as Shapeways et al bring out new aircraft models.

[Watchdog]

Nice job, guys.

A little note though - why is the Austro-Hungarian Albatros D.III (Oeffag 153) listed as not having unofficial stats available when it is the first aircraft listed in the unofficial stats table in the same file?

[Guntruck]

'cos we haven't done them yet.

[Watchdog]

'cos we haven't done them yet.

What do you mean? Why are its full game stats listed in the unofficial stats table, then?

B/A/15/13/2

If availability is a problem (since the cells are empty and yellow), then this wikipedia says they were available since May 1917, most probably until the very Armistice, making it available from Q2 1917 until Q4 1918.

[Linz]

We focused on the stats to get them out before Christmas. Some service dates had issues that we had not resolved at the time of publishing and as Guntruck said this will be updated as needed. A work in progress.
Linz

[Watchdog]

I still do not understand. The file contains both the unofficial game stats and a statement that those very same stats are not available (unchecked box for the stats' availability).

Nevertheless, great work.

[Guntruck]

No, I can see what Jan is on about now - on the manufacturer's page I didn't update the unofficial stats available column when we worked them out. It's no big deal, it's done now.

Edit: and I am loathe to take Wikipedia as gospel

[Jager]

Any chance you could convert the file to a PDF, and download that too, for those of us that don't have Excell?
Thanks Karl

[Guntruck]

Seein' as you asked so nicely, and it bein' Christmas and all

and here

[Pseudotheist]

153 damage!??! The Morane Saulnier A1/27 is a BEAST!

[Guntruck]

153 damage!??! The Morane Saulnier A1/27 is a BEAST!

Well spotted (something the cttee didn't manage )

[Jager]

Seein' as you asked so nicely, and it bein' Christmas and all

and here

Thank you kindly. Have a pint on me
Karl

[Guntruck]

Just updated them, so if you've downloaded them already you may want to do it again

[Linz]

As you will see the Aircraft Stats list will be updated as needed.
We will make the changes/additions and then we will post the names of the aircraft added on this thread.
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Linz

[gully_raker]

Lindsay, I have a reasonable number of the old Profile Publications which usually give climb details, ceilings etc so if there are any you wish to query or ones you dont have please feel free to PM me & if I have what you want I can PM you back or Scan the Tables & Email to your home Email if you give it to me.

[Linz]

Cheers Barry that would be good.
Will PM you my email address
Linz

[petitbilbo]

Barry, I'm desperately trying to find the Profile for the Caudron G.4, but it's out of print since years now.

Could you help me?

PM?

Thanks in advance,

petitbilbo

[gully_raker]

Barry, I'm desperately trying to find the Profile for the Caudron G.4, but it's out of print since years now.

Could you help me?

PM?

Thanks in advance,

petitbilbo

Sorry Bilbo that is one I do not have.
You could try Amazon or ABE Books.

[john snelling]

Great job guys!!! Better or the same I came up with. Thank you!!!

[petitbilbo]

Sorry Bilbo that is one I do not have.
You could try Amazon or ABE Books.

Yep, will do!

Thanks!

[Guntruck]

Bilbo, do you actually mean the Profile Publications from the 1060/70s? I believe I have all the WW1 profiles and I am certain they didn't do one on the Caudron. If they did do one, then I will be very annoyed at having this belief destroyed.

If you mean the Windsock datafile, that's still available:

http://www.windsockdatafilespecials....to-99-30-c.asp

[petitbilbo]

Steve, believe it or not, I just discovered the Windsock website myself.

No, I don't know of any Profile publication for the Caudron G.4 either (just bought the Breguet 14 one).

Thanks for the help!

[john snelling]

"And the official and unofficial stats are in the file section here"

I'm having trouble finding the official stats? It's hard getting old!

[Pooh]

I went over the files listed in this thread and am impressed by the amount and quality of what I see. I do have a couple of questions though.

One of the things that sparked my interest was the issue surrounding the EIII being more manouverable than the DH2 and the Halberstadt, both of which were historically more manouverable than the Eindekker. I know you are dealing mainly with aircraft for which no deck exists but is the group going to address this at some point?

I noted that the Sopwith Pup is assigned the "D" manouver deck. I'm a great fan of the Pup but was wondering about this. In discussions earlier it was assigned the same deck as the Neiuport 17. This seems a significant upgrade as I haven't heard of any reference to the Pup having the torque turns like the Camel & Dr1. Maybe a D* deck ( with 1 of the tight right turns removed) might be more appropriate. After all, one of the reasons the Sopwith Tripe made such an impression was that it was so agile, presumably more agile than the Pup.

Pooh

[hatfieldsinal]

I appreciate all of you taking the time to do this.

It will be a big help as I like to fly planes against each other that historically flew against each other. Since planes of the same vintage are typically about the same ability, this makes it easier to pick planes.

I do have a question about the Nieuport 11. I don't know the history of the plane, but I was under the impression it came along after the Fokker E.III. The table has the Neiuport 11 appearing in Q2 1915 and the E.III appearing in Q3 1915. Are these correct, as best understood? For some reason, I thought the Moraine-Saulnier N typically did battle against the Fokker E.III first.

Second, would it be possible to swap the format of the Availability columns from "Q Year" to "Year Q" at some point? That would make it easy to sort the airplanes by date of availability.

Finally, if people have questions or comments, how would the committee like to be contacted, via this thread? Via pm?

Again, thanks for all of the hard work.

[Zoe Brain]

Contact via this thread is good. That way more people can at least spectate the process.

Nieuport 11 sevice date introduction is incorrect - should be Q1/16.

Swap format of dates - good idea.

Sopwith Pup - an area where we had much discussion and debate. First off, it was the Pup that first showed the torque effect taken to extremes in a Camel. Look at the empty weights, as well as the distribution of mass, and the horsepower of the engine. The Pup with a vickers and lots of ammo up front had more mass in the nose compared to an Nieuport 17's much lighter lewis on the top wing, with mags way back in the cockpit.

Quote Originally Posted by Linz
I wonder if the 80hp engine didn't have enough torque to do this.


Reply
Weight is similar to an early N.17, so is power. However, pilot reports show that while the aircraft was relatively docile, it was longtitudinally unstable in a way the N.17 wasn't - due to torque.

What I consider definitive though was the way it was perceived by both opponents and pilots:

"We saw at once that the enemy airplane was superior to ours." Manfred von Richthofen, after encountering the Sopwith Pup in combat

"When it came to maneuvering, the Sopwith [Pup] would turn twice to an Albatros' once." James McCudden

In cases which are subjective, such as "manouverability", we made a decision to go by pilots perceptions at the time, rather than be bound by theopretical calculations based on gross over-simplifications (mass doesn't change even though fuel and ammo is used up, height is constant, no accounting for engine tuning or individual rigging etc).

A Pup is going to be really good vs Albatros D.I's and D.II's. Its climb is great in comparison to Halberstadts and the like. The Tripe, being 50% heavier, and 50% more powerful, can dive far better... but then runs into structural problems from overdiving. A Tripe could also carry 2 vickers, though at some penalty to performance (climb rate mainly).

By late 1917 though, the Pup's days were long gone. Yes, it could turn well. But like the Nieuport 17, outclassed. Fragile and not powerful enough, even with the 100hp Gnome engines they were fitted with later (as in this photo)

[Watchdog]

"And the official and unofficial stats are in the file section here"

I'm having trouble finding the official stats? It's hard getting old!

There you go: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/dow...p?do=cat&id=59

[Pooh]

Thanks for the response guys. I never knew that about the pup.

Pooh

[john snelling]

I like the stats for the PUP it makes it a good opponent for the Albatros D.III.

[GilmoreDK]

Look at the empty weights, as well as the distribution of mass, and the horsepower of the engine. The Pup with a vickers and lots of ammo up front had more mass in the nose compared to an Nieuport 17's much lighter lewis on the top wing, with mags way back in the cockpit.

Just curious: Did you rate the French Niuport 17s differently? These were similarly armed as the Pup... Heavy Vickers up front..

Not that i disagree on the manouverability of the excellent Pup.. It would match the Alb. D.I/II and it first got into serious trouble when it met the Dr.I.

A note on the subjective nature of how pilots at the time rated theirs and enemy planes was that new enemy planes often was regarded as better than they were... And very often a new plane type was given to the best pilots, the Sopwith Tripe as a good example. The Germans almost saw it as invincible as a start.



- Svend

[Zoe Brain]

Just curious: Did you rate the French Niuport 17s differently? These were similarly armed as the Pup... Heavy Vickers up front..

A lineball decision - we went with simplicity. Otherwise we might have given it a D* with only one 90' turn, but that way lies madness.



Theoretical calculations (above) show that the Pup's turn rate was a few degrees/sec faster than a Triplane. I think the model is wrong, but they were certainly comparable.

That's from http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108...er2005-119.pdf
Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter Aircraft from WWI, Scott Eberhardt, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit 10-13 January, 2005, Reno, Nevada AIAA Paper 2005-119

[Blackronin]

Still praising you, my friends.