Ares Games
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Fokker E.IV stats? And about that old "G" maneuver deck ...

  1. #1

    Default Fokker E.IV stats? And about that old "G" maneuver deck ...

    I've recently had the chance to look at the cards in the Wings of War "Immelmann" booster pack, and then I was looking over the most recent Unofficial Aircraft Availability and Stats file. I think the Fokker E.IV would be nice to bring back to the game, and I got to thinking about a couple of things ...

    First of all, aren't the old out-of-print "G" maneuver deck and the current in-print "T" maneuver deck actually the same thing? I've compared them, and they appear completely identical. If they're not the same, then how are they different? And if they are the same, why does the Aircraft Availability and Stats files continue to refer to the "G" deck (and the modified "G*" deck in numerous places? In files regarding unofficial card stats, it makes sense to me to use "T", as people can obtain it by purchasing currently available models, and they may get frustrated if the chart says to use the "G" deck because that deck is out of production.

    Secondly, in the Unofficial Aircraft Availability and Stats file, why did the Unofficial Stats Committee say they the twin-gunned Fokker E.IV should use the "J*" (a.k.a. "V") maneuver deck? From what I've read, that doesn't seem to fit in with the E.IV's historical performance, and I think it should use a new deck -- the "T**", which is the "T" deck with one or both sideslips removed. (I think removing both sideslips would be best from what I've read, but I'm open to just one if other people think that's more accurate.) Oh, and yes, that's two asterisks, as there's already a "T*" deck, and the "T**" deck would be different. (The "G*" deck is the "G" deck with the Immelmann removed, and so that's what I think the "T*" deck should be as well.)

    For those of you that don't know its background, the Fokker E.IV had a stronger engine than the E.III, and it was mounted with an additional forward-firing machine gun. (The prototype actually had three (!) machine guns, but that was found to add too much weight for practical purposes.)

    To reflect this, in the "Immelmann" booster pack, the Fokker E.III used a "B" damage deck, and the E.IV used the "A" damage deck (and even doing "AB" damage for the prototype model!).

    The big problem with the E.IV, however, was that pilots said the stronger engine didn't help anything, and in fact the E.IV was significantly more difficult to handle, especially in turns. As a result, despite the extra firepower, pilots preferred the E.III. Although the E.IV was not as common as the E.III, however, the E.IV was used for combat, being the first twin-gun fighter to appear over the Western front -- so I think it's a very worthy addition to early-war games.

    As far as game play goes, there actually are official cards for the Fokker E.IV in Wings of War as part of the "Immelmann" booster. The "Immelmann" booster pack, however, is a bit strange, in that the maneuver cards assigned to each plane have since been switched, with the more maneuverable planes becoming less maneuverable, and vice versa. Or to quote the thread detailing the difference between Wings of War and Wings of Glory: "When the cards for the early war Aircraft were first released the Fokker E.III & Morane were allocated the P Deck & the Halberstadt & DH-2 were allocated the G Deck. Those players who knew their history knew that the latter 2 were more manouverable & faster than the Fokker & there was much discussion on the Forum about this. Andrea one of the Games designers is most particular to try for historical accuracy & took this on board so when the new series 5 early war minis were released the Fokker & Morane were allocated a new T deck & the Halberstadt & DH-2 allocated the P deck which far better reflects their abilities."

    To account for decreased maneuverability in comparison with the Fokker E.III, in the "Immelmann" booster set the Fokker E.IV used the "G" deck, which did not have the far-reaching sideslip that the "P" deck had.

    As noted above, however, as things are with the currently released miniatures, the Fokker E.III uses the "T" (i.e., the "G") deck. Therefore, the Fokker E.IV needs to use a deck that is less maneuverable that the "T" deck.

    However, in the most recently released Aircraft Availability Chart, the Unofficial Stats Committee has the three-gunned Fokker E.IV (which in reality performed so poorly it was abandoned) as using the "G" (i.e. "T") deck, which makes it just as maneuverable as the Fokker E.III. And even more puzzling, the Unofficial Stats Committee has the twin-gunned Fokker E.IV as using the "J*" (i.e. "V") deck, which would make it as maneuverable as the Albatros DII!

    I'm assuming that the stats for the Fokker E.IV have been in place on the Aircraft Availability charts for years, and the Unofficial Stats Committee simply didn't get around to changing them after the maneuver decks were switched around upon the release of the Series 5 miniatures, so I'm not complaining or anything. I do think, however, that the stats should be revised for the Fokker E.IV, and that references to "G" and "G*" maneuver decks should be changed to "T" and "T*" (which is why I think the modified Fokker E.IV deck should be called "T**").

    So what do you think? Whatever your response, I appreciate it!

    -- Eris

  2. #2

    Default

    Hi Eris.
    When I set up the Unofficial Stats Committee at the Oberst's request, it was envisaged that although it was a lot of work at the time it was a once for all project.
    Then many unforseen things happened:- Nexus went under, Shapeways started producing non official models, and a lot of us started building our own.Then Ares took over and moved some of the goal posts as you point out. This all provided a lot of extra work for a bunch of folks who provided us stats as a good turn for the Drome.
    I am sure that they will look at your submission with favour. Just let us remember that they do it for the love of the game and to help out, not as a paid service.
    Oh! and I did not mention the addition of WW2.
    You can, therefore, understand why I am protective of my Stats Committee. Not that they would admit that they need protecting, but I know what a lot of work they have done, and are continuing to do, long after they should be relaxing in the Mess.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    First of all, aren't the old out-of-print "G" maneuver deck and the current in-print "T" maneuver deck actually the same thing? I've compared them, and they appear completely identical. If they're not the same, then how are they different?
    I don't have them in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the G deck is worse than you think it is. The second sideslip to either side should be a steep maneuver, differentiating it from the T deck.
    In practical terms, this means that the G deck can't sideslip-stall-sideslip in one turn, or stall-sideslip-sideslip-stall unless the turn break happens between the sideslips.

  4. #4

    Default

    We rely though on critique, and people asking difficult questions. How else are we to improve?

    The E.IV was considerably faster than an E-III, but less maneuverable. Less maneuverable than an Albatros D.III, not known for its nippy turn abilities, but of nearly comparable speed. When the engine worked correctly, anyway. 170 km/h puts it outside the 140-160 range of the E.III.

    So the most appropriate deck is one not as good as the Albatros D.III's J deck, but just as fast. The V deck fits the bill.

    aren't the old out-of-print "G" maneuver deck and the current in-print "T" maneuver deck actually the same thing
    No, they differ when it comes to sideslips. The T deck is just a tadge better. Look at which maneuvers are steep, and which not. I agree the difference is subtle, but Andrea convinced me that it was more important than it looks.

    FWIW there was considerable correspondence between myself and Andrea on this one. He was the one who pointed out to me that the E.IV, while lacking maneuverability, was significantly faster than the E.III. We agreed that the J* deck (as was - now V) was perfect.

    The 3-gun version is really almost mythical. One was built, and in its only test (on the ground), shot its own prop off, so the idea was hurriedly abandoned. Had that not happened, Andrea and I guestimated that it would have lost enough speed to be reduced to E.III levels, and also not gained any maneuverability, so would use the G deck.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    When I set up the Unofficial Stats Committee at the Oberst's request, it was envisaged that although it was a lot of work at the time it was a once for all project.
    Then many unforseen things happened:- Nexus went under, Shapeways started producing non official models, and a lot of us started building our own.Then Ares took over and moved some of the goal posts as you point out.
    When we started, the idea was to do the dozen or so kits put out by SRAM. No big deal. Then Kampfflieger at Shapeways started up, and the scope expanded dramatically. Doubled, in fact. But that was OK, except he kept on putting out new models as fast as we could deal with them. Then colinwe started, then decapod and reduced aircraft factory and.... well, the task expanded from a one-off of a dozen aircraft to an ongoing task of hundreds and still increasing.

    We soon encountered a problem with the Immelman booster pack. Stats didn't make sense, they weren't consistent with anything that had gone before.

    It's quite common for companies in financial trouble to get new products out of the door without adequate QA in an act of desperation to get cash flow coming in. And if there's a problem with prototypes not matching the production batch, there's neither the time nor money to reject the initial batch and correct it, nor to put out corrections in following batches.

    I'm not saying that that's what happened, but Andrea is a lot happier now the problem (however it came about) has been ironed out. Best let sleeping dogs lie. Seriously. It's fixed now, anyway.

  6. #6

    Default

    First of all, I want to make one thing VERY clear ...

    I think the Unofficial Stats Committee does flat-out incredible work. I have huge respect for everything they've done.

    The responses I've gotten to this thread have made me even more thankful for that committee's existence and hard work, because I have learned a great deal from all the different responses.

    I have to admit I didn't notice the steepness of the "G"-deck sideslips, and I can definitely understand how that could make a difference in critical performance.

    I had read that pilots said they didn't think the stronger engine on the E.IV helped performance, but I realize now I didn't take the increased speed enough into account. And with that in mind, the "V" deck does make perfect sense.

    I'm a little surprised that the three-gun E.IV was even included in the "Immelmann" booster deck because, as mentioned, only one was ever produced, and it quickly proved itself to be unsafe for combat. That being said, however, I'm a nut about Albatroses, and, even though only one prototype was ever produced, I would love to see an official (or even unofficial) card for the Albatros Dr.II triplane, so the idea of putting experimental aircraft into the game has a rather intriguing appeal!

    I'll definitely be giving the Fokker E.IV a spin soon using the "V" deck and see how things turn out. I really appreciate everybody's patience with my questioning what you had done, and I look forward to future data you provide for our benefit!

    Take care, and see you in the skies!

    -- Eris

  7. #7

    Default

    When we did cards, and not only miniatures, it was cheaper to add some strange color scheme, some plane belonging to minor powers, some unlikely variant. So in a full pack of cards, with several E.III and E.IV (not so different in nationalities and schemes), I tought that the odd three-machineguns plane could be curious enough to be included. Worth that little bit of cardboard that could not be used in many interesting ways otherwhise.
    I propose an optional rule for it. If a green jamming card is taken treat it normally, but if a red one is taken all weapons are permanently damaged and can not be unjammed.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    I'm a little surprised that the three-gun E.IV was even included in the "Immelmann" booster deck because, as mentioned, only one was ever produced, and it quickly proved itself to be unsafe for combat.-- Eris
    Something similar happened with the Harvey/Waight Brisfit model - Harvey designed and fitted the top wing Lewis gun mount, flew the plane and found that the gun mounting interfered with the trailing edge compass, so he removed it all; thus the model produced by Ares only flew ONE MISSION!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eris Lobo View Post
    That being said, however, I'm a nut about Albatroses, and, even though only one prototype was ever produced, I would love to see an official (or even unofficial) card for the Albatros Dr.II triplane, so the idea of putting experimental aircraft into the game has a rather intriguing appeal!
    Experimental aircraft cause the stats committee no end of trouble.
    You see, we do the best research that we can on performance, taking into account a multitude of sources. This includes official aviation ministry test figures, pilots accounts, as many primary and secondary sources as we can find... and eventually come up with something that shouldn't be too different (comparatively) from what it should be, within the mechanics of the game.
    As you can see by my explanation, a lot of thought has gone into this. That's not to say we're always right, and new data will cause us to re-evaluate, but hopefully I've explained the process.

    Now when it comes to experimentals... often we have a few photos, some data about similar aircraft, and words like "its performance was disappointing..." or "it showed no improvement over existing models" or "it had slightly better performance, but not enough of an improvement to justify the disruption of production" but no actual figures! Do they mean climb, speed, maneuverability, structural strength, cost to produce, reliability, ease of handling... so often we have to take a plausible guess.

    If you can come up with a good set of data for the Albatros Dr.I, we'll be glad to make one. So far, all we have is:
    This machine, built in 1917, was virtually a D V fitted with three sets of wings to assess the triplane layout. All wings were of parallel chord with ailerons, connected by link struts, at all tips. It would seem no advantage was gained with this layout, and the type was not proceeded with.
    http://flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25760.htm

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	30-2.jpg 
Views:	147 
Size:	47.5 KB 
ID:	130476

    No less than eleven manufacturers produced triplane, single seat fighters in the summer of 1917, including Albatros, whose Dr I simply married a new triplane wing to an otherwise standard DV airframe.
    When triplanes seemed to hold the most promise as fighters a number of designs were put forward. This Albalros DrI was built in 1917 - and as can be clearly seen it was essentially an Albatros DV with an extra wing added.
    R.Kosin - The German Fighter since 1915 /Putnam/

    The Albatros Dr. I was a German fighter triplane derivative of the D.V fitted with three pairs of wings instead of two. Identical in most other respects to the D.V, in the summer of 1917 it was flown side by side with the existing biplane in comparison trials. There was no discernible performance advantage and development was halted at the prototype stage.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_Dr.I quoting Green, W. & Swanborough, G. The Complete Book of Fighters. London: Salamander Books, 1994 and Gray, P. and Thetford, O. German Aircraft of the First World War. London: Putnam, 1962

    Albatros took a simple approach and simply gave their D.V fighter a new triplane wing. The new wings were of equal span and equal chord, with ailerons on each wing. The centre wing was attached to the centre of the fuselage while the upper and lower wings were mounted with a gap between the wing and the fuselage.

    The Albatros Dr.I was no better than the D.V, and didn't enter production. Albatros produced a second triplane in 1918, the Dr.II, but with no more success.
    Rickard, J (pending), Albatros Dr.I , http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...tros_Dr_I.html


    The Albatros Dr.I is one of those planes that should have been good but wasn't. During the First World War, aviation was in its infancy and a number of interesting designs were flown, but never accepted for service. The Albatros Dr.I was one of those. Built to try to improve climb performance, it used the fuselage and engine of the Albatros D.V and D.Va currently in service.

    It featured rather narrow wings, all of the same span, but was otherwise the same as current D.Vs. It was turned over to the German Air Force for testing in September of 1917. The test pilots were generally unimpressed with the aircraft and complained of it being tail-heavy. Needless to say, this meant no full scale production. The number of prototypes built is unclear, but most think that just this one was built.
    http://modelingmadness.com/scott/w1/albdr1preview.htm

    During the 1917, after appereance of Sopwith Triplane over the Western Front and Idflieg's request for the similar machine from German Aircraft factories, those were overwhelmed by "Triplane-mania". Almost every factory tried to build triplane prototype, including Pfalz, A.E.G., Fokker, Albatros... OK, now we know which model was the most successfull, but then all tried their craftmanship and luck to make all-the-better.
    The subject of my topic was based on successfull Albatros D.V, from which it got fuselage, powerplant and armament. There were some modifications in order to mount third (middle) wing, as well as modification of joint between lower wing and fuselage.
    The prototype was tested by Idflieg in September 1917, but because of engine cooling problems induced by the use of different radiator testing was delayed. Afterwards the machine didn't show any improvement over classic D.Va and its testing and subsequent production was cancelled...
    http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/mo...el-1-72-a.html

    According to Peter Grosz in Albatros Experimentals, the Alb Dr.I first appeared in September, 1917. By October, 1917 it was determined that the plane was tail-heavy and climbed poorly, and further development ceased.

    It was essentially a D.V derivative, produced in response to Idflieg's interest in triplane designs. The single prototype unit was built using the fuselage from Alb D.Va D1573/17, powered by a Mercedes D.III rated at 160 hp and fitted with three wings of equal chord and span, no stagger and apparently zero dihedral. Each of the wings was equipped with ailerons whose motion was synchronized with connecting struts. Cooling was provided by two airfoil radiators mounted in the middle wing near the leading edge and close to the fuselage.

    When you compare top and front views of the Alb Dr.I with the two best triplane designs, the Sopwith Triplane and Fokker Dr.I, it looks like a loser. The Alb Dr.I wings are too narrow in chord and too close together -- this combined with the lack of stagger meant that the top and bottom wings probably create interference in the air flow over the middle wing, reducing any lift it may have contributed. The wing arrangement probably also interferred with air flow over the tail surfaces as indicated by the reported tail-heaviness. The struts and rigging are numerous and draggy-looking.
    http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ai...tml#post352030

    Maximum speed, km / h 185
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww1/albatdr1.html - actually original says "Максимальная скорость , км/ч 185" as it's in Russki.

    At first guess, assuming they'd fixed the bugs - it's just a funny looking D.Va as regards stats.

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm always astounded by the wealth of information that the unofficial committee can lay their hands on, as illustrated by Zoe's fantastic reply above. Hence the rep, I don't think you all get the recognition you all deserve. Cheers.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  11. #11

    Default

    Thank you, kind Sir. I personally am in awe of some of the other committee members, especially when it comes to WWII. My library's pretty small, theirs is extensive.
    I should also mention one really competent military aviation historian not on the committee - Andrea, the game designer. He's good.

    I hadn't looked at the Albatros Dr.I before, this was just a first draft, the data that's easy to get. How reliable is that 185km/h figure? Don''t know. Where did it originally come from, Idflieg or an educated guess? No idea. However, if I put it before the committee, they'd likely find out.

  12. #12

    Default

    My references are mainly Aircraft in Profile with test info, first hand accounts the Osprey books and several other references that may or may not be useful but if I can be of help let me know.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    We rely though on critique, and people asking difficult questions. How else are we to improve?

    The E.IV was considerably faster than an E-III, but less maneuverable. Less maneuverable than an Albatros D.III, not known for its nippy turn abilities, but of nearly comparable speed. When the engine worked correctly, anyway. 170 km/h puts it outside the 140-160 range of the E.III.

    So the most appropriate deck is one not as good as the Albatros D.III's J deck, but just as fast. The V deck fits the bill.



    No, they differ when it comes to sideslips. The T deck is just a tadge better. Look at which maneuvers are steep, and which not. I agree the difference is subtle, but Andrea convinced me that it was more important than it looks.

    FWIW there was considerable correspondence between myself and Andrea on this one. He was the one who pointed out to me that the E.IV, while lacking maneuverability, was significantly faster than the E.III. We agreed that the J* deck (as was - now V) was perfect.

    The 3-gun version is really almost mythical. One was built, and in its only test (on the ground), shot its own prop off, so the idea was hurriedly abandoned. Had that not happened, Andrea and I guestimated that it would have lost enough speed to be reduced to E.III levels, and also not gained any maneuverability, so would use the G deck.
    I was looking for updated maneuver deck statistics for Fokker E.IV's with standard armament, and with the 3 gun set-up. I found this thread and comment from 6 years ago. Has any of this statistical information changed, or is everything still relevant?

    E.IV standard stats: V A 11
    E.IV 3 guns stats: G AB 11

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSC05681 (2).jpg  
    Last edited by abovetheclouds; 06-19-2020 at 16:48.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    I'm always astounded by the wealth of information that the unofficial committee can lay their hands on, as illustrated by Zoe's fantastic reply above. Hence the rep, I don't think you all get the recognition you all deserve. Cheers.
    I heartily second Neil's statement Zoe. i have neglected you all for too long. Don't know how I missed it at the time.
    Thanks to you all.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abovetheclouds View Post
    I was looking for updated maneuver deck statistics for Fokker E.IV's with standard armament, and with the 3 gun set-up. I found this thread and comment from 6 years ago. Has any of this statistical information changed, or is everything still relevant?

    E.IV standard stats: V A 11
    E.IV 3 guns stats: G AB 11
    Personally, I'm sceptical, so don't use these stats - I use the 'G' deck as printed on the E.IV cards.

    The Fokker E.IV was considerably inferior to the Albatros D.I and D.II - using the 'V' deck makes it just as fast and just as manoeuvrable!
    If this were actually the case, two things would not have happened:

    1) the Germans would not have withdrawn all their E.IVs in rapid order and replaced them with Albs (the new planes would have supplemented, not replaced, them)
    2) the British and French would not have recorded multiple references to their shock at encountering the "new fast scouts".

    The Albatros was a complete game-changer; German pilot after German pilot referenced the fact that their Eindeckers (both Fokker and Pfalz) couldn't catch or compete with the Entente Scouts, but their new Albatros planes completely changed that. Entente pilot after Entente pilot complained that the new Albatros was superior to their own planes, particularly in speed - the Germans could dictate the battle, by choosing to escape (and the Entente couldn't catch them) or press the attack (and the Entente planes were quickly overhauled and caught!). Nieuport 11, Airco DH2, Sopwith Pup AND (significantly) Sopwith Triplane pilots (even with the 130hp Clerget!) cited this problem...………..

    If the Fokker E.IV drops back to the 'G' deck, it remains slower and less manoeuvrable than the Albatros (as it should be), and, crucially, Entente opponents don't whinge about it being too good!

    The 3-gun version could thus be a problem, except that very few were produced (I have references to at least 4, not 1, being fielded) so I never use it, except when faced by particularly annoying uber-opponents (of which, thankfully, I have only 2). A bit of 'AB' action quickly chastises them! It was definitely flight tested (once by Oswald Boelcke himself).

    The performance loss of the 3-gun E.IV over the 2-gun version is small enough to be absorbed within the same 'G' deck, particularly when you consider that a plethora of Entente planes get extra guns fitted within the "Wings" game for absolutely no performance loss whatsoever (despite historical sources citing noticeable performance loss!)

    As for the increased speed of the E.IV over the E.III, I haven't found any sources confirming this. I'd love to have access to Zoe's sources on this.
    Also, the arrangement of the Obereusel twin-engine by mounting one rotary behind the other, on the same crankshaft, led to rapid overheating of the "second" engine, and performance loss - I feel the slightly slower 'G' deck shows this better.



    So, personally, I stick with the 'G' deck for both the Fokker E.IV versions.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  16. #16

    Default

    Tim, thank you very much for the helpful information, and your valuable input. I recently picked up from Anthony (tusekine) my first custom painted E.IV, and E.III to go along with my official Buddecke release. The 3 gun E.IV was interesting to read about, but I'll be flying the standard version most of the time. I'm just excited to finally have some other early war Central Powers planes. It's been a little more than frustrating trying to get a hold of the official Immelman and Hautzmayer E.III's releases. Hoping for Ares reprints before I die.

  17. #17

    Default

    I could probably do you a "Hautzmeyer"...………..I'll have a look when I get home from work.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  18. #18

    Default

    Tim, after multiple frustrations with ridiculous eBay auctions, I've learned to not get my hopes up. But if you did have one that you would be willing to sell, I would definitely be very grateful and happy to give it a new appreciative home. And since it is to be used on the gaming table, a used one would be perfect. And my want list would then be cut down to just 2, the Immelman E.III, and the Kirschstein DR.I.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post

    As for the increased speed of the E.IV over the E.III, I haven't found any sources confirming this. I'd love to have access to Zoe's sources on this.

    .
    According to http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/product?productid=3048 spped is 170kmh.
    They reference
    Fokker E.IV Windsock Mini Datafile 7, PM Grosz, 1996 - Josef Scott – Early German Aces of World War 1, Osprey, Greg VanWyngarden, 2006 –Fokker Fighters of World War One, Alex Imrie, Arms & Armour Press 1988 – Fokker Aircraft of World War One, Paul Leaman, Crowood 2000 - Fokker Eindecker in Action, Squadron Signal, D.Edgar Brannon, 1996 – The Vintage Aviator Ltd - 1914-18 Aviation Heritage Trust - Private Collections

    An excellent source on performances of WWI aircraft is https://flyingmachines.ru/

    https://flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25489.htm puts the speed at 160kmh. It references 3 works ;

    V. Kondratiev Aircraft of the First World War
    O.Thetford, P.Gray German Aircraft of the First World War (Putnam)
    W.Green, G.Swanborough The Complete Book of Fighters

    These give speeds of 160kmh, 160.9kmh(100mph), and 99mph(160kmh) respectively.

    Wiki's article has 170kmh but cites no sources, making it of very low utility (ie only use as a last resort).

    http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft...y/fokker_e.php has the speed at 166kmh. Referencing
    Fokker Eindecker in Action (Aircraft, No 158) D. Edgar Brannon, et al / Paperback / Squadron/Signal 1996

    http://www.wardrawings.be/WW1/Files/...okker-E.IV.htm has 170kmh

  20. #20

    Default

    Awesome!

    Thanks, Zoe - I'll start to "compare the meerkats" when I get time!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  21. #21

    Default

    Well, that's an eye-opener!

    My "Squadron Signal" "Fokker Eindecker" happily contradicts itself!

    It twice states that the E.IV "unfortunately turned out to be bigger, stouter and more heavily-armed, but also less reliable, slower and much less manoeuvrable" than the E.III.

    It then goes on to show a Stats chart for the E.III with top speed of 87.5 mph, then has the E.IV Stats chart with a top speed of 100 mph!

    So, 100 mph is "slower" than 87.5 mph?

    Zoe's other sources check out (great work, Zoe & co!) but this leaves the poor old (well, NEW) Albatros D.I and D.II in a bad place.............
    If the Fokker E.IV gets the 'V' deck, it is no slower than the 109 mph Albatros, and is also no less Manoeuvrable!

    A radical solution would be to bump up the Albatros to the 'B' deck, giving it the extra speed to overawe it's rivals (and become a true "fast scout"), and the extra speed and manoeuvrability to consign the Fokker E.IV to the dustbin.
    It is radical, though............but not entirely without support - 'Osprey's "Duel # 55 - FE 2b/d vs Albatros Scouts" has a data table showing the same 109 mph speed for the D.I, D.II, D.III and D.V

    Obviously, this is a single stand-alone source (if you discount all the other 'Osprey' "Duel" books, all of which share the same data), and the D.V is not the D.Va, which is often represented in board games as having a higher speed than the D.V (sorry, my book research has not extended as far as the D.V and D.Va yet!)

    Just food for thought.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  22. #22

    Default

    As the Tools For Working Out Stats doc gives the speed brackets as 141-160 and 161-180kmh you could argue that the E.IV doesn't make the higher speed bracket Tim as 100mph is 160.934kmh ! If less reliable, slower and much less manoeuvrable then maybe the G deck would fit the bill with or without the third gun, as flat out in either config would likely be under 100mph but within the lower speed bracket. The extra gun version could have a higher climb rate to compensate perhaps.

    "He is wise who watches"

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    As the Tools For Working Out Stats doc gives the speed brackets as 141-160 and 161-180kmh you could argue that the E.IV doesn't make the higher speed bracket Tim as 100mph is 160.934kmh ! If less reliable, slower and much less manoeuvrable then maybe the G deck would fit the bill with or without the third gun, as flat out in either config would likely be under 100mph but within the lower speed bracket. The extra gun version could have a higher climb rate to compensate perhaps.
    Yeah, I already use the 'G' deck (post #15) but Zoe has confirmed the 'V' Deck as correct (post #19) as things stand.....................

    As my post says, the "slower" bit contradicts the faster speed given in the same publication!!!!! Confused Dot Com.

    My best guess for the E.IV would be a 'V*' deck, with one sideslip each way becoming a "steep", but it's still too fast compared to the Albatros (or, more correctly, the Albatros is too slow compared to everyone it fought).
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  24. #24

    Default

    My thanks to everyone for their extensive research and input.

  25. #25

    Default

    Just remember that aircraft have different speeds at different altitudes. Different maneuverabilities too. At 20,000 ft, the Camel was inferior in every way to a Fokker D.VII. Which is why Camels stayed below 15,000 ft, leaving the SE's and Dolphins to play higher.

    The Eindeckers were at their best "on the deck". At higher altitudes, 10,000 ft, they were outclassed by contemporary biplanes such as the D.I and D.II.

    Talking about Camels again - after IIRC 12 flight hours the 130hp Clerget dropped below 100hp. An E.IV might have done 170 on the deck when new, but only 160 when older or higher.

    Working out "which deck is closest" means compromises have to be made. The E.IV is certainly inferior in game terms to the much sturdier Albatros D.I and D.II which were contemporaries, and less maneuverable than the single gun Halberstadt D.II.

    Given a choice between it being a fragile Albatros D.I or a twin gun Fokker E.III, the stats are closer to the former than the latter.

    One trap for young players ; be wary and double check ANY source that has speed in kph equal to the engine output in hp. I've found several cases where the figures were transposed this way, 150hp translating to speed 150kph, etc. Similarly 100mph and 160kph are not exactly the same. For most purposes, close enough, but be wary when someone says "160.9kph/ 100mph" or similar. The accuracy of our knowledge just isn't good enough to justify the precision. 100mph might be 104 or 98 depending on the airframe and how long it's been in service.

    Given 2 sources, one with 160hp/170kmh and 160hp/160kph, the former is more plausible, as there is no possibility of inadvertant transcription errors.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    ....might have done 170 on the deck when new, but only 160 when older or higher.
    True of oh so many of us.


    Great info. Thanks, y'all!

  27. #27

    Default

    Great info. Thanks, y'all!
    Yea, what he said. Many thanks Zoe, very nicely put.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    Talking about Camels again - after IIRC 12 flight hours the 130hp Clerget dropped below 100hp. An E.IV might have done 170 on the deck when new, but only 160 when older or higher.
    I'll back up Zoe's wisdom with another data point. I was entering some data on the Sopwith Snipe into the wiki from the Profile Publications pamphlet on that plane, and they had some flight-test data on plane E8006. When new, it is listed at 121mph (at 10000ft), climb to 2000m in 5:10. After only 24 hours of flying time on that same plane (8 to 12 patrol's worth of time -- a few days on a busy front), it is listed at 115mph at 10000ft and climb to 2000m in 5:40. I was surprised at how fast its performance had dropped, and I assume it was receiving full maintenance during that time.



Similar Missions

  1. "U" Maneuver Deck?
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-10-2013, 09:06
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 02:39
  3. Odds & ends "D" deck maneuver cards
    By Ed2 in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 23:53
  4. Maneuver Deck "L"
    By trumpetman52 in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2010, 02:54

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
  •