Planes Compared

Okay, now this is very interesting, because it's comparing the performance in aircraft that are from Red Barron 3d.

Of course, these are supposed to be historicallly accurate aircraft performance wise, so the overall value of a scout in combat would be based on these values (with the added value of structural integrity in a dive, which they didn't seem to consider).

So to you guys that know your stuff about these planes (DAN SAN&#33 I'd appreciate an evaluation of these performance statistics as compared to reality.

http://www.wings-of-valor.net/files/...flighttest.htm

[Craig]

The Snipe seems a little too highly rated (there are many leraned men who consider it inferior to the late-model Camel), and the Fokker DVII must be the Mercedes version (see climb and speed figures).

[R Pope]

The Snipe was designed to maintain as much of the Camel''s performance as possible while removing some of its viciousness. In this it succeeded, but the better top speed didn't offset the loss of agility so loved by Camel experts. The average pilot had a much better chance of becoming an old hand in a Snipe, though.

According to everything I've read, the Camel killed a lot of pilots due primarily to the heavy torque on a light airframe.

I find it interesting that the Snipe, while not much heavier, and with almost double the horsepower, didn't have that as a big problem. It's unfortunate it made it's debute so late in the war.

I read somewhere that it actually showed up on the front lines in Spring of 1918, but that has to be an error.

I was flying in Jasta 11 (in the game) with Albatross DVa's, what amazed me was the horrible performance of this aircraft in the game. Supposedly this is accurate. Maintaining speed in a dogfight is horrible. We went up against SPADs and everyone died... including both Richtovens... If the Snipe had made it's debut when the DVa was still the primary fighter, the British would have cleaned up the skies.

[R Pope]

The Snipe's handling improvements were due to the much greater wing area and span.

[Craig]

Originally posted by KBOC@Apr 14 2004, 10:36 PM
[b] If the Snipe had made it's debut when the DVa was still the primary fighter, the British would have cleaned up the skies.

Check out a thread (somwewhere) on the Snipe vs. the Camel a few months ago. Many of the best folks we have here are of a rather different opinion than yours. It might be informative to look it up.

Was that the title of the thread? Snipe V. Camel?

[Bushrod]

In addition to performance I think the guns are also important; not just the number but the mounting, sight picture, and point of aim. I don't have any enhancements on my RB3D so it's just the regular cockpit view. I use different reference points on each plane as the sight-the crossed bracing wires on the DrI and Camel, the valve cover(?) on the Albi II, III, & V, that circular thingy on the SE 5(is that supposed to be a sight?), and on the D VII I use the radiator cap. I noticed that the N-24 was at the bottom of the performance list, but I love the way it shoots. For me the wind shield is the sight-center the target there and that's where the bullets go. With experience you can adjust for deflection and lead. On most of the other planes the bullets drop out of sight, below the nose, but with the 24 they converge smack in the center of that windscreen. I like the perfomance of the N-28 and it has a similar windscreen, but those left mounted guns annoy the hell out of me. Of course unlimited ammo helps!

[Craig]

Originally posted by KBOC@Apr 16 2004, 04:22 AM
[b] Was that the title of the thread? Snipe V. Camel?

I'm sorry; I don't remember. It might have even started out as something else!
Maybe someone else can recall.

[Steve Smith]

It appears that the table values are not very accurate in regards to rate of climb and time to turn.

RB3D Table value for SE5 time to turn 360 degrees is given as 8.52 Seconds. From Bennett's "Three Wings fo the Red Baron" the fastest time to turn 180 degrees for the SE5 in a steeply banked turn is on the order of 7-8 seconds which equates to 14 to 16 seconds for a full 360 degree turn.

Likewise for climb; the Sopwith Triplane is listed as climbing from 2,000 ft to 3,000 ft in 21.74 seconds. From Hadinghams "The Fighting Triplanes", the Sopwith time to climb from 2,000 ft to 3,000 ft is given as 45 seconds.

Seems like the RB3D values are off by a factor of 2.