Can we have these?

AEG.CVIII Dr: Unsuccessful triplane version of the C.VIII biplane.

AEG D.1 and Dr.1: Unsuccessful biplane and triplane fighter.

Alb D.XI: Prototype biplane fighter of 1918 powered by a Sh.III rotary.

DFw R.I and R.II: large six crew bomber. Four engines fitted inside the fuselage driving
two tractor and two pusher props. Only 3 built. (1-R.I, 2-R.II)

Junkers CL.I: Two seat ground attack/escort monoplane skinned in corrugated metal. 47
delivered by 11/11/18. 3 of them seaplanes.

Junkers D.I: First all metal combat plane. 41 built.

Phalz D.VIII: Small number delivered by the wars end of this rotary powered fighter.

Phalz Dr.I: Often stated to have used a triplane copy of the Nieuport wing arrangement. Far cleaner looking than the Fokker, only a handful were built in 1917.

Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, 1989.

yes i forgot to say that i looked at the so called repair note pinned to the photo of the fokker dv under extreme magnification and it said...

" tell hq this plane sucks...cancel the order"

p.s.

"there are some almost invisible holes in the wing...suggest some rodent traps in the hangar"

In an attempt to be serious ...
If KOE is going to go back that far, we need the E.III.
The D.II would be very nice to have to bridge the Eindecker to Albatros gap.
The DRI is obligitory (and we know this one is in there).

Everything else is optional and nice to have. They were there, and some of them were certainly in combat (Fokker E.IV, D.III, SSWs) but their numbers weren't significant and many a pilot, Allied and German, could go through a long career without ever seeing one.

Argon's production numbers tell the tale. From late 1916 to the end of the war the Germans produced a preponderance of inlines, most of them powered by the 160 HP Mercedes or a derivitive of that engine. I would like to see some of these types in, but not at the expense of some other far more significant type.

Now why the hell did I bother to post this???

It was in favor of the D7. That pesky inline just screwed up anything.

I don't know, but now you are a member of the Anti-Rotary club. And it is still up in the air if we failed in our efforts to keep the Tripe out.

To be serious

Is the FokD.II really that much different from the Halberstadt of the time? You know more about it than I do. Maybe KOE will have both.

If the game is a success, more planes may be added. Over in IL2 land there is a constant wish for more 'crap' planes. Could happen here too.

it would be nice to have the the german lgv in.
according to james McCudden they were extremely common , and if you read his book very hard to shoot down ..havent seen one in a sim yet.

Because perhaps you thought Aspect might be listening, or maybe because it makes good sense from the standpoint of designating a historically plausable yet achievable orignal plane-set for KOE?

Ironhand, I'm home now and have some source material on the Pfalz E-series aircraft.

Source: "Pfalz Aircraft of World War I" by Jack Herris. Published 2001 by Flying Machines Press.

General comments about the series are on page 10: "The Fokker monoplanes, which actually entered service months before the Pfalz fithers, had better performance, especially climb rate, and had much btter maneuverability and handling characteristics. . . ."

"Because the inferior Pfalz monoplane fighters followed the Fokker monoplanes into service, only small number of Pfalz monoplane fithers saw frontline service . . . . . Not only were the Fokker monoplanes superior in performance, the Pfalz aircraft apparently were not as structurally sound, because in August 1916 they were ordered withdrawn from the front and cannibalized for spare parts due to numerous fatal crashes."

Information on the Pfalz E.I, page 10: "Teh Pfalz E.I was created by mounting a synchronized machine gun on a Pfalz-built Morane-Saulnier Type H powered by a 7-cylinder, 80 hp Oberusel U.0 engine. Entering service too late to make a significant impact, only 45 aircraft were produced."

Inforamtion on the Pfalz E.II, page 16: "The Pfalz E.II was a slightly enlarged E.I powered by a 9-cylinder, 100 hp Oberusel U.I engine. . . . .Production of the Pfalz E.II was 130 aircraft."

Information on the Pfalz E.III, page 20: "Like the E.II, the E.III was also powered by a 9-cylinder, 100 hp Oberusel U.I engine, but was an armed version of the Pfalz A.II (license-built Morane-Saulnier Type L) parasol. All the Pfalz E.III fighters may have been conversions of existing Pfalz A.II reconnaissance aircraft. Few were converted; its speed matched the E.II but the climb was not as good as the E.I. Furthermore, since the E.III was a larger, heavier aircraft then the E.I or E.II it was not as maneuverable. A maximum of 8 Pfalz E.IIIs was at the front in June 1916.

Inforamation about the E.IV, page 21: "The Pfalz E.IV was powered by teh 14-cylinder, 160 hp Oberusel U.III engine. This rotary engine had a double row of cylinders and was much heavier than the less powerful Oberusel U.0 and U.I engines. Evolved from the E.II. . . .its more pwerful engine improved performance compared to the E.II even though it mounted two machine guns. However, the Oberusel U.III had cooling problems with it second row of cylinders and was not as reliable. . . . A total of 46 aircraft were built, but the maximum quantity at the front only reached 5 aircraft in April 1916, an indication the type was out-classed and saw little active service."

Information about the Pfalz E.V, page 24: "The Pfalz E.V used a 100 hp Mercedes D.I in-line six-cylinder engine . . . . Based on the E.IV airframe, the more streamlined E.V was slightly faster despite its lower power . . . . By the time the E.V passed its Typenprufung (type test) in July 1916, the first German biplane fighters, Halberstadt D.IIs, were already at the front. Because the performance and maneuverability of the E.V were inferior to the Halberstadt biplane already in service, only 20 Pfalz E.V aircrat were built . . . . and a maximum of only three were ever recorded in the frontline inventory in June 1916."

Information about the Pfalz E.VI, page 25: "The Pfalz E.VI was the final variant of the Pfalz monoplane fighter series. It was basically an improved Pfalz E.II and use the same 9-cylinder, 100 hp Oberusel U.I engine. . . . . Like the E.V, the E.VI also passed its Typenprufung in July 1916. Again, 20 E.VI aircraft were built to keep the Pfalz factory active, and they were used for training because they were obsolete for combat; none were recorded in the frontline inventory."

So, that's the story of the Pfalz E-series aircraft.

Droops

Or maybe because you couldn't help it. Matter-anitmatter collision, sucking in the entire universe. My guess is Pat got sucked into the black hole that is this thread

Wow!!!

Thanks Droops.

p.s. Anything about the Pfalz D8 or Dr1?

S!

I sure hope KOE has a good SP game, so I don't have to play with some of the knuckleheads posting here.
Sheesh, some of you guys got more baggage than a victorian-era woman on holidays.
You guys manage to derail any discussion here with your personal feuds. Sorry, but to say it plainly it's pretty disruptive, and plain rude.
I don't know what you guys are hoping to accomplish by these personal attacks, but aside from providing cheap entertainment, it's not much.

Hautz

I'm actually trying to prove VonHelton is mostly wrong on a lot of his posts, and make him realize what citing a source to prove something is.

S! Argon,

I'm not pointing fingers, there's no need, it's pretty obvious who the offenders are.
I would just hope that perhaps that those involved would think about how unfair they are being to people trying to carry on meaningful discussions here.
To the guys who continue to drag this forum down: Hey, no one cares about your personal feuds. Perhaps you don't know how you're coming off, but you ain't impressing anyone.
Now that's enough. I don't want to add to the off-topic, bandwidth wasting drivel here.

Hautz

I gotcha JG1Hautz_J10. I do agree about some of the insulting posts here (Clear name-calling and what not) However sometimes people just need a taste of their own medicine.

Back to the topic(s) on hand!

Droops, I was going to post some early Pfalz info here aswell, but there was A LOT of it. My sources say basicly the same as yours. Glad you posted it! Very informative.

For those who are now assessing "blame", it's time to do your homework and read the threads of this forum FROM THE BEGINNING!

There was a time when meaningful discourse was being exchanged here, and historical documentation duly sited. With the importation of rudeness, and the evasive tactic of ignoring historical references for fact proofing, the whole demeanor of this forum degenerated from something which advanced ideas and communication, to nothing more than a overblown, chest thumping, competition between the various camps that the members represent here.

What all this nonsense has been about is basing one's claims on substantiated references, or not.........that is to BACK UP ONE'S WORDS WITH DOCUMENTED DATA AND REFERENCES!

So for those latecomers who now want to make "historical" judgements of their own........do your research before advancing your own personal unsubstantiated theories and judgements, because you're just advancing nothing but the level of anomisity and ignorance that remains here!

Or you could just quit replying to the guy.... :rolleyes:

Im not........I'm replying to you!

I'll now site my resources: Argon, Binky Bartlett, Ironhand, and myself, because we have consistently fought this Battle for Proof!

Here lately it's very good to see some others finally coming around!

Welcome to the Trenches boys!

yes folks could quit replying.
but what would that do?...only let someone believe that he has won some sort of victory.

von heltons attitude has been inexcusable.
by consistently insisting he is right without proof he has denied people here the right to any reasonable discussion.

i hold my hands up to ridiculing him and also know that it is pointless and not furthering any worthy cause...but it would be wrong to let someone like him get away with such awful behaviour.

he has been beating folks over the head with this theory that he insists is true for years....but persistently avoids any proof with facts or evidence.

its not right that people should be bullied into believing something that has no substance.

it is how the nazi party behaved.

Maybe someone with better info will correct me, but I think the Fokker D.II was available a bit earlier than the Halberstadt D.II. This gets you out of Eindeckers that much faster. The Fokker D.II was not that much of an improvement. It was only a little faster and it was still a wing warper, but when the Allies are already starting to field Nieuport 17s every little bit helps.

Per Droops comments about the Pfalz monoplanes: one thing to remember is that in early 1916, "only 130" is really quite a few. The Pfalz E.II was faster than the E.III but less manueverable and a bit more fragile. Now this aircraft is not really necessary since it is a stablemate of the Fokker E.III, not a successor. It does not offer much (if any) of a qualitative improvement over the Fokker E.III. It is another "nice to have" (I fly them all the time in WFP and I prefer them to the Fokker). As is true with many Pfalz aircraft, it served primarily with Bavarian units.

Nazis? I think a line just got crossed and this thread is its way to a lock-down.

Aw well (Rings the bell and starts clearing the tables).

S!