So, I see a... cloud? ;-) Not quite sure what one can see there...
The RC-Thing is how I stumbled upon WOFF:
I'm flying some RC-Models from Time to Time and wanted to buy a WWI-Fighter, because I always liked the Style of these archaic Aircraft... well, I like old Things in general - I own a Vintage-Car-Workshop, use a 1962 Thunderbird as daily driver and on my Desk is a fully functional 1961 Western Electric Steel-Dial-Disk-Phone :-)
...but then I thought:
Hmm... it's an RC Model. You can fly around with it... and watch it flying... and that's about it. You don't get really close to what it's really like with such a Mopdel. I remembered a Game called "Wings" on the Amiga (I guess, the average Guy here is old enough to know, what an Amiga is) and then I thought:
Hey! It's 2014! There surely are some Kick-Ass-WWI-Air-Combat-Games on the Market. I've seen "this other Game" first, but I don't like Data-Striptease. I NEVER buy Games, that force me to grant the Company Acces to my Computer and grab off, whatever they like, just, to play this Game.
Then I saw WOFF. They don't do that - so I bought it. And yes, what a great Game this is :-)

Sorry for only peripherical hitting the topic with this post...

It is not the cloud you should be looking at it is the long way down when you stall

RC and FPV = died and gone to heaven. I trying to learn how to make balsa models so I can make me a D.H.2 with FPV system. I have made a couple models now but want to make a couple more a low wing,high wing and maybe a bi-plane before I look to convert a trainer (type) over to RC.

But yes I started reading about how real airplanes was built in the early days, and flight characteristics of the different types of control surfaces in hope it could make me a better model builder. This sort of research made me come to the conclusion Eindeckers most likely could turn well based on a few things. I think the trouble it had with other newer fighter types mainly Nieuports. It could not match them in a roll, and when it tried it drained forward energy. If you take a 3 Channel RC for example. (Throttle, Elevators and Rudder) The pilot initiate the roll by using the rudder and relies on the wing dihedral and opposite rudder to correct to level flight. If you was to remove the vertical stabilizer on the rudder this would initiate the roll sooner compared to the traditional plane setup. Because the Eindecker does not have a horizontal stabilizer either the elevators also becomes more responsive and instantly changes the longitudinal dihedral. Which, could drastically influence its pitch rate. I think the Eindecker wing warping was not to initiate the roll but to aid it like a tradition rudder setup today ( Wingwarping = Rudder with Horizontal stabilizer but without the yaw. Rudder without the Vertical stabilizer is Ailerons with yaw). That said the other problem was now speed. I do not think the Nieuport could match the turn rate of a Eindecker but a Nieuport could change direction a lot better, then could match the Eindecker with speed and catch them when the Eindecker had lost the energy war. This gives the Eindecker one real chance maybe to inflict damage on a Nieuport after that if the damage was not done the Eindecker was most likely doomed. So from Nieuport 10 onwards Eindecker was effectively matched and superseded.

I think I have developed more of an interest in early aviation since playing OFF/WOFF and I know I have certainly started to look at aircrafts differently due to research.

I was watching an older tv series; WWI in colour, Blood in the air
and they took a Fokker E series 1/4 scale into a wind tunnel to see how it preformed.
It was a dud, always on the edge of a stall, especially on a slight climb.

This is something that makes me wonder about wings.In WW1 they obviously felt that more wings would give more lift and so the monoplane was improved upon.But then came the Fokker V.III and the modern planes we have now.What changed is what I wonder about.My take is that as thrust improved then a single wing became relevant again as at a certain point you have enough lift and then wanna overcome the drag that multiple wings brings.

There was alot of trial by error learning going on.

I know and find it fascinating.And its crazy to think of trying to design better planes during a war.So many people dying and leaders forcing timelines on you and your dev team and you have to pretty much wing it and see what happens.Crazy

yep, and there is always the , "Hey, This worked great...lets do more of it" type thinking going on

World War I sure accelerated the development of airplanes!

Oooopps wrong video for Fokker E series wind tunnel.... starts about 6 and a half minutes in.

Awesome video,thanks and sadly war in general accelerates technology.

yep, and it is drones now

Wow,that second video was amazing! Got me all antsy for Zeppelins and Gothas.

I just ended my Aviatik career prematurely as I find it needs some work to make it more immersive.When flying with dots only you are lost as to what the flight leader is doing and a few times the flight was headed home without me knowing they all dropped their bombs already.I posted before that a nice addition to dots only would be simple characters in grey like the dots that was above the flight leader and signaled his intent.No name of pilot,plane type,distance etc but just simple characters showing flight leader intent.So ^ for takeoff.....v for landing....> for transit....< for going home and + for attack target,and you need to be a certain distance from the leader to see his hand signals.I had looked into the XML files but I have no idea where to begin so this is just wishes.

That said I started an E.III career and its like I am in a race car compared to the Aviatik! Loving this coupled with the excellent view all around.

Is the Fokker E.III start date correctly modeled?It shows early 1916 as introduction date on wiki while in WOFF its available at jun 1915.

Edit...nevermind as its not available since if you choose an E.III and start date of 1915 it states nothing available and starts searching 1916.

I would discount that video they never actually say what they was comparing it too. It is without doubt early airplanes operated near to stall speeds question is how near. Anyway Eindecker had multiple variants like we know and only a few of those variants had alterations too their wings. Which suggest there was not a issue at the time. But it is like I said in order to understand the Eindeckers performance more you need to look at what replaced it.

So we can conclude Fokker D.I and Halberstadt D.I replaced the Eindecker. If we eliminate the E.IV due to it being a experimental gun platform. The Fokker D.I was unimpressive I assume this was due to it's rate of roll again (Wing Warping Bi-plane) never really saw service. I know Boelcke commented on the Fokker D.I forgot what is was he was unhappy about though. The alterations made and Fokker D.II was most likely too late and the Albatros D.II was already impressing.

Halberstadt D.I on the other hand had ailerons and minor alterations was made D.II went into service however the performance was not considered much better than the Eindecker. but it was held in high regard by the Allies why? My guess it could fight back like a conventional allied fighter plane of that time period. MvR kept one of these and even used one for few weeks in Feb/March 1917 because his D.III was damaged. So that being said Halberstadt could not have been that bad for him to opt for it over a Albatros D.II. Which now suggests the Eindecker was not too bad either.

I think comparing them all the only thing that really stands out is a possible issue with rate of roll. I suspect rate of roll would certainly hinder your ability to change direction, in which case it would also most likely make you predictable. It could be why it lost its edge and although it still had a good turn of speed even running away would have been a problem when surprised. So, where the Halberstadt could change direction and defend itself the Eindecker was limited to nose down and hope. Which now could also open up flaws in the construction of the plane especially if damaged.

Doing little more research. Seems Fokker D.I was unimpressive while the Halberstadt D.II was only slightly better. The Fokker D.III was considered better than all prior to it even the Halberstadt D.II. Boelcke score 7 victories in a Fokker D.III between September 1st and September 15th but complained it was slow and unreliable. Question is was his D.III with Wing Warping or Horn-Balanced Ailerons? This airplane survived the war only to be bombed in WW2

Fokker D.III unreliable was due to engine most likely a copy of either a Gnome 14 Lambda-Lambda or a LeRhone 14D the problem with these engines was the 2nd bank of cylinders overheated due to poor cooling and inadequate lubrication.

Halberstadt and Fokker's was replaced by Albatros D.I in November and D.II mid November 1916.

Halberstadt D.I might have arrived at the front sooner than the Fokker D.I (Late July) which suggests the Eindecker was equal to the Halberstadt D.I and the Fokker D.I was better than the Halberstadt D.I. Which suggests the D.II's was equal and the Fokker D.III being better.