Operational hieght

[mik]

If the service ceiling of an aircraft is the altitude that its rate of climb reaches 100ft/min. At its service ceiling a competent pilot should have no difficulty flying in straight lines. Gentle turns require due care and attention.
Therefore the operational altitude for aircraft depend on the mission.
What altitudes were artillery spotting photography and bombing actually carried out.

[Chock]

see this thread from a while back:

Typical Operating Altitudes?

Al

[mik]

Thanks al the first part of the thread was very useful.
mik

[Chock]

You might be further interested to know that in addition to service ceiling, there is also 'combat ceiling', which is invariably defined as the altitude limit where an aircraft is still able to make a 500 feet per minute climb. And since you turn an aircraft with excess lift from the wings, the advantage of that in combat is obvious, hence the definition.

Naturally, that kind of ability would be useful for a fighter aircraft against a two seater, where a fighter would need the kind of maneuverability that a 500 fpm climb rate would allow, to enable it to shift about under the two seater in order to stay out of the rear gunner's sights. Therefore, it would certainly be useful for stuff like the RE8 and BE2 (and equivalent German craft) to take a fight higher than a regime where a fighter could dance about the skies, since they needed all the help they could get, and if they could get up to the kind of height where an enemy fighter was above its combat ceiling and thus limited on maneuverability, which admittedly would probably be a long winded process, then that would even things up a bit for the spotter aircraft, as they tended to be designed with stability rather than maneuverability in mind.

I don't know if that was regularly tried, but theoretically at least it makes sense, and there is some evidence that it would work if you read either Jimmy McCudden's or Eddie Rickenbacker's autobiographies, in which both of them relate stories where a two seater is too high up for them to be effectively engaged without getting fired back at. When you think about that, there were obviously some limitations to the famous technique of tilting the Lewis gun upwards on a Nieuport or SE5 in order to fire at a two seater from underneath.

That method of attack sounds like a simple thing to do, but I'm willing to bet that it took a fair bit of skill and indeed courage to manage in reality; when your aircraft is teetering on the brink of a stall and pitched up quite nose high to maintain enough lift, the last thing you'd feel like doing was taking your hands off the stick to man a Lewis gun, possibly having to stand up in the cockpit too, in order to reload the thing, when very near to stalling and spinning, although in fairness, the SE5a did have a very good elevator trimming system which would doubtless have helped a bit. Even so, I think I'd have been very scared to stand up in the cockpit of such a craft with no parachute and a 20,000 foot drop over the side with no safety strap holding me in. The thought of that alone is enough to make you realise what a bunch of gutsy b*st*rds those guys were.

Al

[mik]

I was aware of a combat ceiling, and that it was when climb reached 500ft/min.
I was not sure how to, or even if that it could be applied to WW1 aircraft as an RE8 would have a combat ceiling of about 1000ft.
I think an SE5a with 500ft/min climb capability would be far more agile than a Spitfire with 500ft/min.
I have also read that 500ft/min is service ceiling for Jet aircraft. Having said that I accept your definition of combat ceiling.
It is a shame that combat ceiling is not defined as that altitude where an aircraft is still usefully manoeuvrable. Then you might have 500ft/min for WW1 fighters 250ft/min for WW1 two-seaters, and perhaps 1000ft/min for WW2 fighters.

[dglewwe]

"... altitude where an aircraft is still usefully maneuvrable."

Non-qualified armchair blathering here...

Wouldn't it hinge on the number of Gs that could be held? You're right: the era would make a big difference - An SE5 that could still pull 2gs would perhaps be a competitor, while a Spitifre would most likely be dead meat? It just depends on what the other fellow is capable of.

Stall speed / power availability (for replacing lost energy) would be the keys, yes? (no?...) Reliable data for the aircraft of the time may be difficult (if even possible?) to obtain, but relative best-guesses would suffice for a game (which is what you're after, right?). Start with sea-level, and increase stall with altitude (there's a good discussion somewhere in the forum about altitude/engine performance) and multiply for the G-rating of the turn. The bird that can't hold a turn goes down, leaving him open to attack from above by the other guy who could manage to stay up without trading altitude for energy. Gentle-stalling aircraft (like the Fokker D-VII...and perhaps some two-seaters? dunno...) would have a distinct advantage by allowing the pilot to push closer the edge of the envelope and eek out that little bit extra of performance.

Dunno if that's of any help...just rambling.

[mik]

The amount of G a plane can hold is related to excess power and available rate of climb. I think most of us can't fly planes and definitely don't fight in planes. So we are all armchair Generals doing a bit of blathering.