Hello All!

I hope everyone is well I still look over forums just busy lately anyway I just got round to flying Eindecker's just wondered what peoples experiences are with them ?

Salute!
James

The Eindecker is a piece of crap.

Of course, it'll always have the honor of being the first true combat aircraft, but other than that - no.

She moves too slow, stalls too easily, and turns like a brick. Given the AI skill of rear gunners the 'Fokker Scourge' never really happens, and by the time the Entente scouts start showing up you are completely outclassed.

I've been flying an EI from the addon and enjoy it.

It is an interceptor, not a dogfighter. To use against two seaters (and even hard times against the Strutter), otherwise in 1916 run away from enemy scouts !

A campaign in 1915 is very challenging with the EI.
Watch out for the Morane rear gunners!

The Eindecker was the subject of our first challenge. I think Louvert was the only pilot that could make anything of it. Of course, I believe he actually could make Snoopy's doghouse fly!

Yea I have not took the Eindecker to career mode yet. I know most of its strength is turning left. Just from what I know about the Eindecker from research. I used to love the Eindecker in OFF do not like it in WOFF. I think its flight model needs looking at for a few reasons.

Engine
Early Gnome (Oberursel) had a tendency to pull left.
In left turns had tendency to nose down, in right turns had a tendency to nose up.
(Flight model got tendency to pull right, left turns seem fine but right turns is a stall waiting to happen)

To get a better picture of the Eindecker you need to look at the Halberstadt.

Halberstadt was not considered to be highly superior to the Eindecker other than having a better rate of climb owing to the biplane construction and more wing area it was only 6mph faster. I would assume the Halberstadt was slightly better in a turn but this is not guaranteed due to the Eindecker having a greater wing area on a single plain giving it less drift. also had less passive drift and was lighter.

Halberstadt had a reinforced trailing edge and visibly appear to be rigged with wash out. No doubt this is to combat wing failures in high G turns. Is this something the Halberstadt suffered from or something the Eindecker suffered from? I know Immelmann and Boelcke both report vibrations and wing flutter in high G manoeuvres in the Eindecker. Maybe the Hablerstadt is a construction based on what had been learnt.

Anyway enough of that. If I knew how I would give this planes flight model a look at myself in my spare time between videoing myself flying WOFF and posting videos to my facebook page and work

Looking forward to the next phase

Salute!
James

Hey, don't forget to post some of those videos in the "Combat reports and cool stuff" thread. We want to see them too!

The Eindecker is great!





If you're an Entente scout pilot, that is.

You have to look at the Eindecker with the apropriate eyes of the time back then. If you fly the Eindecker with the knowledge that there will appear Albatros or Fokker DVII etc. later on, and you also having hundreds of flying hours in them, then of course you will consider the Eindecker as slow and sluggish etc.

When you are used to fly motorized kites, like the Etrich Taube or Aviatiks, albatros C series whatever, aircraft with multiple roles, and then the Eindecker appears with the forward firing gun, single seater, just with the purpose of hunting down other aircraft, you will see how agile, fast and dangerous they suddenly are. Of course especially with the eindecker the rumors and myths in those times played an even bigger role probably than the actual danger itself.
Hunting down other AC with the Eindecker, or with any early AC, was a generally difficult task. There is a reason why only a handful of the best pilots achieved enough victories to become aces. Why you received the PLM with 8 victories. To hunt down others with the Eindecker, the only real chance was to surprise them from above out of the sun. Otherwise they retreated quickly or the "dogfight" looked rather like a dogfight of very old, tired dogs. So wether the initial attack was a success, or it was often enough abandoned. The Eindecker show was already over in early 1916, so if you have an Eindecker career, and achieve let's say 3 victories in them until early 1916, then you have done your task.


Just try one thing. Start a Campaign in 1915 and fly a twoseater for several virtual months in your career. Then you transfer to a squadron flying Eindeckers, you will be surprised how roaring fast, and small and agile the eindecker suddenly appears to you. Forget what kind of AC will appear in later stages of the war.

Jump in a Eindecker at 6000ft cut its engine and let go of the stick see what happens. Then do it again this time pay attention to the direction of the wind. the nose of the airplane being the heavier point should be blow around its shortest axis so you end up with a tail wind. Tell me if this is what happens when you cut the engine.

Also I see no reason why the Eindecker would be rigged tail heavy. It would be rigged to fly level at 87mph or there about. like most WW1 airplanes unless pilots favoured a different type of rigging most would be rigged to fly level at a set speed close to its cruise speed. Also on a airplane the angle of incidence of the tail-plane is mounted at a different angle to the angle of incidence of the wings. this is called Longitudinal dihedral. This is why in a dive an airplane will begin to nose up. If the diving tactic was being used anyway then why would they rigged the plane to be tail heavy your going to be fighting that drag all flight.

I would not raise this subject if I did not think there was something seriously wrong with the Eindeckers flight model. But at the same time if it is not too much trouble would like to know how I could look into changing it myself.

A Immelmann turn a dive followed by a vertical climb followed by a roll followed by a dive. try doing this

The EI pulls to right for me, just like the EIII I flew in DiD. Haven't tried the EII yet as I want a little suprise when it arrives. For keeping the nose down I cut the throttle back for level flight.

.

I agree with Creaghorn, you have to look at the Eindecker in a contemporary fashion and compare it to what came before. It can be made to serve you quite well in the early WOFF skies provided you don't try to fly it like it's a late-war dogfighter. Attack from above and use hit and run tactics.

Also, Freiherr_Wulff, I don't know where you found that book but that is NOT an Immelmann Turn. That diagram is showing a Lufbery which was a maneuver that could be used to either stay on the tail of an enemy or, provided you had a kite with a good climb rate, could be used to turn the tables on an attacker that was on your six. The historic Immelmann is this:



To the Eindecker being tail heavy, I agree. However, you can quickly trim this out in your control settings and then simply remember how many clicks it took to set it to your liking and make that adjustment before you even leave the field. Easy peasy.

.

I like them.Will start a new career up again after this British one ends with the inevitable me bursting into a ball of flames.I have been injured 5 times and spent 53 days in a hospital so far.3 times to flipping my Nieuport 16 on landings though I am good enough so that the plane does not do a complete nose over so I seem to be surviving the harsh landings so far.

And I agree that using trim is needed.I like the planes so that if I wanna climb I go to 100% throttle and 83% is to cruise and maintain altitude.I then fly with my finger on the time compression buttons at all times and with just a touch of rudder to maintain heading.

Keeping your fingers away from time compression buttons will greatly enhance your experience !

.

A very big +1 to that corsaire.

.

time compression? Where we're going, we don't need roads

Thrust Angle



Now look at Prop Angles. (This is documented in 1917)




Louvert No one can be sure what a Immelmann Turn is but the example you gave does not contain a half roll. Half Loop - Half Roll this is description Immelmann gives himself. your image is a sliceback



Back to the issue of flight model - this book was wrote in 1917. Stability is something planes was designed too at this stage they knew a lot by time the Eindecker was designed





I think the problem is. our flight sticks being simmers have a fixed neutral. In WW1 they had to lash the flight sticks when the planes was on the ground to stop wind from blowing the control surfaces about and damaging them. So once the lashing was off there neutral would be whatever the pilot holding it was comfortable with. So on that position the airplane would have been balanced. So our neutral should be the planes balance. But yes I can set this with trim I do not mind that really.

Thrust and engine characteristic in my opinion needs altering Gnome nose down left turn, nose up right turn. suggest Thrust angle of engine in level flight eliminated the tendency to turn left. Like I said though if I knew how I would change it myself I would like to see how the Eindecker performed with it setup with facts in mind.

Gotta disagree.Auto pilot is dangerous but I find time compression is perfect by never going higher than 4X.

I place plane at cruise throttle and just a touch of rudder and the Nieuport-16 flies perfectly level and straight allowing me to concentrate on scanning fully.Some planes require some aileron etc also but when you find the sweet spot they are easy to fly straight and level.

Auto pilot and time compression

.



I must disagree completely Sir. We know precisely what the historical Immelmann turn is from contemporary combat flight instruction manuals published during WWI. The move you are describing is the modern Immelmann turn which is the half-loop with a half roll at the top, but that version came much later. The historical Immelmann turn is exactly as shown in the 1918 illustration I posted, (and yes, that is now also called a 'sliceback'). Also, I've read what little that was actually written by Max Immelmann and nowhere does he describe the turn as you've noted. If you have any such historical evidence to the contrary I would very much like to see it as I am always willing to be proven wrong and learn something new.


.

Grr. Deleted. I didn't see Louvert's last post and he covered what I was going to say.

Immelmann turn you have the eye witness account of the French two-seater pilots ? They described at the peak of the vertical Immelmann was able to Chandelle in any direction. Sliceback does not really contain a vertical in it. Oh and the half loop half roll is mentioned by Immelmann himself in a letter home. Problem is an account taken from 1918 could be the progression of the manoeuvre we cannot say for sure. When I was a little boy I used to think the Immelmann was a hammerhead stall or something close to the type but this too neglects the half roll.

Problem is now we have focused on one aspect of my last post and completely neglected valuable information to talk about a mute point that cannot be proven either way. I guess the other question is can you do the manoeuvre you described in the E.III 9/10 times without stalling it ?

I got head out for work gah

Good Day all

Quite right about the French two-seater pilots and their observation of Immelmann being able to Chandelle at the peak of the vertical, which only proves the point about the historic Immelmann turn as the Chandelle used in WWI was a slipping on either wing to drop the nose back down and into a dive, exactly as described in the WWI texts for the turn in discussion. And there are illustrations of the turn from earlier in the War as well, not just 1918.

To the letter you mention: I've heard of this one before but have yet to see a copy of it anywhere so I must place that one in the 'unsubstantiated' column.

And not really a mute point IMHO as it creates a misconception about what the Eindecker was likely capable of doing in real combat in 1916. I have taken the WOFF Eindecker and can perform the historical Immelmann repeatedly in it with a high degree of accuracy. Trying to do the modern version of the turn is incredibly tricky and places you nearly stopped in the sky, hanging upside down, and presenting a beautiful target for the rear gunner in the two-seater you are attempting to drop back onto. Loops are nearly useless anyway in combat flying as noted by many RL pilots over the years and a half-loop with a roll-out at the top is no better in an under-powered kite. The maneuver does look good though which is why it's been used at air shows for decades.

Sorry you have to head to work Freiherr_Wulff, this is fun!

.

See I have always look at a Eindecker like a low profile racer type plane. It was designed to be fast and have low drift. There seems to be enough information to suggest the airplane was balanced quiet well, even to the point that the fuel tank sat slightly to the port side of the fuselage. But, like you said we can get to this point with trim in WOFF. What we cannot do is address the characteristics of the engine.

If the facts of the rotary engine are out there, then the facts of the rotary engine should be here. I think they are very much part of the flight model and should be mapped. In which case I think the pull to the right should also be checked hey it could just be switched to make it a pull to the left at the very least it would tie in with the engine characteristics. But like a propeller I am going around in circles. I accept the way it is but would like to change it without causing hassle to the devs, unless of cause they would want to change it.

Back to the Half Loop Half Roll Immelmann turn. Translations of descriptions into a clear picture is hard. Like understanding my English . The thing is that French crew clearly mentioned a vertical. In the sliceback there is no vertical and in my idea there is no half loop. So I guess we going to have to wait until Corsaire invents a time traveling Macchi so we can go back and ask

Oh and the books if people are wandering. Air Combat Manoeuvers: The Technique and history of air fighting for flight simulation. (Yea I own a book on Flight Simulation) In Pursuit: A Pilot's guide to Online Air Combat (make that two lol) How to fly a Plane: The First World War Pilot's Manual. Rubber Powered Model Airplanes by Don Ross covers flight trimming and props and whole bunch of other stuff.

.

Freiherr_Wulff, if what you are saying is that you climb up to vertical, (or at least near vertical), then rudder left or right to slip over on a wingtip and drop back down nose-first into a dive in the opposite direction from whence you started then we are in agreement as to what the historic 'combat' Immelmann turn is. Also, please understand that I am not saying Immelmann did not also do the aerobatic version of the turn, (half loop with a half roll at the top), but it is not the one he used when fighting in the WWI skies. He was a smart, savvy flieger and I am quite certain he would not have used a move like the latter in combat as it wasted the vital elements of time and energy, the squandering of either in combat often proving fatal to the squanderer.

And books I've eluded to and/or referenced in the course of this discussion:

"Learning to Fly in the U.S. Army", E.N. Fales, 1917
"Pursuit Work in a Single-Seater", Lt. Albert Louis Deullin, 1917
"Practical Flying", W.G. McMinnies, 1918
"An Explorer in the Air Service", Hiram Bingham, 1920
"Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying", Wolfgang Langewiesche, 1944

.

.

Oh, and forgot to say, I agree with you about the direction of 'pull' in the WOFF Eindecker. It appears to be contrary to the historical data.

.

I think you are right we are in agreement in part on Immelmann turn at the point of a secondary attack there is a lot of option depending on what position the plane is situated in. I think Immelmann was a natural flyer understood how a plane worked most likely due to his mechanical background. I think the understanding is proven in his flight exam.

I was thinking about buying that Stick and Rudder book the other day is it worthwhile ? I been buying books on model making more than flying lately, construction techniques etc just started converting my RC cars over to digital (2.4ghz) am looking to convert my planes now. Need get a DX6 on order

.

One of the best books ever written on the subject, IMHO. Well worth owning.

I have not built or flown an RC plane since I was a teenager and that was many moons ago now. Both of my brothers are still into RC and if time allows I may get back into it myself some day. Aaaah time, the most valuable commodity of them all.

.

I need one of these, for research purposes obviously

https://toni-clark.com/english/frames_e/fokker_e1_frm.htm

Wouldn't the Immelmann be used after a head on pass and the enemy starts a horizontal turn?

Nope certainly not.

I think the original Immelmann turn is a two phased attack developed on two-seater targets. I think elements of either phase can be used in general flying or fighting. But I think the Immelmann turn is a tactic rather than a manoeuvre.

Immelmann would position himself with altitude advantage. Know his and his foes relationship to the lines in anticipation of his targets reaction to the surprise attack.

This may sound cynical but I think the initial phase serve the purpose of removing the two-seaters ability to defend itself at the very least. So the first phase was a surprise attack on two-seater from above and behind targeting its observer/gunner before pulling up. Maybe not to the vertical, but to use the speed to gain some of the altitude back. I inserted a partial roll in the vertical/sharp climb to maintain eye contact on target so you can inspect and react to his next move.

I think the 2nd phase of the attack is based on the outcome of phase 1 and if it achieved its minimum objective. At phase 2 the key element of surprise is gone so if the observer/gunner is not out of action do you follow the attack up or fly away? my guess fly away. (Fine line between cleverness and cowardice)

If observer/gunner out of action at point of phase 2 then 2nd phase of the attack will begin. I think the next manoeuvre would be a chandelle turn in order to get back into a position to attack a fleeing two-seater (Do not think a two-seater would turn and fight) Maybe form of Split S or Sliceback. Really depends on the two seaters defense retreat strategy but the general idea of the attacker is to re-position on the two seater's tail.

Sorry no pictures I cannot draw But why would this tactic be named a Immelmann turn? because the Adler von Lille was always using it and when they discovered who he was

Gonna try some combat with immelmann moves and see what comes out of it.Drinking a few beers right now and I can't fly well when I do so tomorrow.

Wau! For that price you can buy a real one LOL

.

Freiherr_Wulff, your two-seater attack outline is accurate and I've employed it exactly as described in both OFF and WOFF and with good success. Not to say there aren't other ways to go about it of course. To Wolfstriked's supposition about the head-on pass, this can also be accurate when talking about a single-seater target. You could use the Immelmann to get back around on the target and regain some altitude in the process. But then you could also use the split-S or renversement or whatever the situation dictates really.

.

^yep and I also think its actually preferred to use it on a head on pass with a two seater.Not a perfect Immelmann but a bank one where you pitch up and also bank at a 45deg angle.This means the rear gunner now has to calculate lead for both directions.

Nietzsche lol going to have to settle for this one.... and run around living room making engine noises.

http://www.dumasproducts.com/product_info.php?products_id=663

Oah! How cute! I gotta buy this one!
This thing is rubber band driven, right?

I would assume with the FAI tan II rubber. That plane got a 17 and half inch wingspan. which is bigger than any of my models. might be worth checking if there is a RC conversion for it.

Ran into a unique looking cloud.

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.