Speeds re movement cards

[Linz]

I'm probably reinventing the wheel here but thought it worth looking at the Movement Cards in relation to real aircraft speeds.
The cards are divided into four speed lengths.
P E G R these have a speed band from 130-160kph
I J K D Q these have a speed band of 165-187kph
C B H L M F O S these have a speed band of 185-199kph
A N these have a speed band of 200-220kph

K and H are the only (except bombers) that don't have Immelmanns in them.

The difference between the cards within each speed band is weither they have Immelmanns,
90degree turns, and sideslips.
Therefore to choose which movement cards suit which aircraft ask yourself these questions
Speed of aircraft
Number of crew
Type of engine Radial, Rotary, Inline
Maneuverability

In the files section there are movement cards the R deck is incorrect. The R is the same length of as the P E and G cards
Hope this is of some help.
Linz

[steel_ratt]

According to Andreas (published in an interview somewhere in these forums), the speed bands are:
201+ kph very fast (A, N)
181-200 kph fast (B, C, ...)
161-180 kph average (D, I, ...)
141-160 kph slow (E, G, ...)

There are some official aircraft that appear to be out of place, but this seems to be due to some historical or game balance reasoning.

[Linz]

I play this game because I like the ease of play not to many rules and not hard to follow. My problem is that I love kit bashing and bringing something different to the
table. With this in mind what I am trying to achieve is to give people a rough idea of how to pick the most suitable movement cards easily.
So firstly I have looked at the actual speeds of aircraft.
Eindekkers where only in the 130kph area and have a P deck
Dr1s are 185kph and Tripes 187kph but have a D deck and Camels at185kph use a C deck so there is some overlap.
Maybe the rule of thumb here is if built before June 1917 and in the low 180kphs then I J K D Q cards would be used if June 1917 onwards then C B H L M F O cards would be better.
The other questions number of crew, engine type, maneuverability then apply to what turns are best suited for that aircraft.
Should all aircraft with radial/rotary engines have the wicked 90degree right turn? Or should we look at wing length/area? Or again was this something that a lot of aircraft could do but was thought to dangerous so pilots didn't use it? and became common practice late 1916 with the pups, Tripes etc.
Just a side issue why can't twin seaters do a split S after all it is not based on ability
of aircraft to climb in fact it's based on the aircraft stalling?
The biggest area of complexity is maneuverability we have to go to pilots reports and once again we are faced with the old chestnut my aircraft can't do that because the training officer said if you try that the wings will fall of. So should we look at a date for when side slips first became common and allow all aircraft to do them? Or maybe only fighters? I'm looking forward to the release of the card for the Bristol Fighter this could be an eye opener.
Having said all this and thank you for reading it. I still feel we are able to put together some sort of basic formula for aircraft maneuvers that tell us which pack best suits.
Linz

[steel_ratt]

Yes, I have noticed the inconsistencies with Andreas' stated speed bands and actual performance data for certain aircraft. The thing is, though, that the performance data is often inconsistent between sources. I suspect that the speed bands are more of a rule of thumb that is tempered with information from first-hand accounts, comparisons with other contemporary aircraft, etc. I'm not sure that it is possible to come up with a hard-and-fast rule; just look at our discussion of the deck selection for the Sopwith Pup for an example! The 180-ish kph speeds seem to be the hardest to match with a maneuver speed (as you have pointed out, with planes placed on either side of the boundary seemingly without rhyme or reason).

The restriction on split-s could simply be that the rule was introduced after 2-seaters were introduced and it hasn't been fully integrated. Either that or the pilots didn't want to risk flinging their observers out of the plane.

[Bartman]

The question about Split-S maneuvers and two-seaters is a good one.

The Split-S is a high G intensive maneuver and if an aircraft is not built to take the strain of the bottom pullout the outcome may be disastrous.

I wonder if many of the two-seaters of the day were incapable of handling the stress on the airframe?

[Linz]

My feeling with speeds and the game is that the difference between the middle range decks is not overly significant once contact has been made. It's more about turns and climb tactics that save the day. Hence the June 1917 rule which was when the Camel was introduced. Maybe the term guideline rather than rule should be used as I am sure there will be aircraft that will not fit either side of the June date.
It appears that in most cases the speed question sorts itself out fairly easily. It is as you say only those in the 180kph that really causes problems so let's have at least a guideline for those who don't want the hassle of trying to sort this out every time a new plane turns up.
Linz

[Oberst Hajj]

Something else you might be able to use to help pick the correct maneuver deck to use, Wing Loading. The higher the wing loading, the less maneuverable a plane was. This might give you more insight in to why some planes use deck X and others Y for the same speed band. I say look there for your side slips, split S and other maneuvers (90 degree turns).

It could also shed some light on the C vs. D decks based on similar "actual" speeds of the real planes. The Camel might use the C deck to give it wider turns then the Dr.I

something to look in to.

[steel_ratt]

Good points all around.

Wing loading figures will definitely be an important factor - not one that I have looked at before. It will be interesting to see what the figures are like for the official planes so that we have some comparatives. Another factor for determining maneuverability, though, will be the control surfaces themselves. Some planes had undersized tails/rudders/ailerons/etc.

As for the speeds, the 06/1917 dividing line seems like a reasonable rule of thumb.

[Oberst Hajj]

There is a thread over at The Aerodrome that gets pretty technical talking about the maneuverability of the DR.I vs. the Sopwith Triplane. They have accounts of a single pilot flying both and also input from that Albatros Works company that builds all the super nice flying replicas.