- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been pulling together research for a few years now on the SE5a, and the engine upgrades that were done in 1918. Attached to this post is the document with my research results and proposal for a high compression SE5a engine. I am asking players to review and comment on what I have put together. We have play tested these new stats for a few games in the MN group for positive results, so I am looking for further acceptance in the DP community, hoping maybe we can implement them in online games?
Comments and feedback are welcome!!
I have had the benefit of reading Andy’s paper on the SE5a (even though posting files doesn’t seem to work here) and I think it was very well done. Great job, Andy. It was an interesting read, for sure.
I’m normally opposed to adding a bunch of new aircraft. I think it dilutes pilot progression and in some cases overstates the significance of “fringe” machines. That’s not the case here, since we’re talking about variants within the SE5a. I think variants can be overdone, too, adding complexity and detail without really improving game play. I’m not sure I get much out of all of the different types of Camels, for example (but I admit they don’t really hurt much either). I do favor tweaking the SE5a, however, since I think its game value falls far short of its actual value in WWI. That has always bothered me, and Andy’s research helps me understand the disconnect, a bit. I think another reason is that the SE5a was a superb hit and run fighter, but Dawn Patrol is a dogfighting game.
So in sum total I like what Andy has done, and for what it’s worth I’m supportive of the changes. That said, I don’t think we should adopt them until they become official in some form, such as publication in Aerodrome.
Graham
You’re right Graham, DP is a dogfighting game. If you ask most anyone flying British, if you had an outright choice on which a/c you could fly, most would pick the Camel 150. So I have always been a little confused when I read about British orders of battle for their SQDs. Camels were put on ground attack and low level patrols and the SE5as patrolled at 10,000-12,000 ft. In DP terms it would be the opposite. I think MC published an interview he had with US ace George Vaughn who flew Camels and then SE5as in an Aerodrome in the early 90’s. I remember , in Vaughn’s opinion, the Lewis was a waste of ammo. Anyone else remember the article ?
Dan
Dan, I’ve read accounts from several SE5a pilots who thought that the SE5a was superior to the Camel. Very few SE5a pilots would have traded for a Camel, regardless of the engine in the Camel. Also, while Dawn Patrol is a dogfighting game, the real air war wasn’t! The boom and zoom tactics of the SE5a were how many, many victories were scored, mainly in surprise attacks. That’s how many German aces, including MvR, scored many of their kills as well.
I’ve also read that the SE5a held its performance at altitude better than the Camel. The SE5a’s strong high altitude performance, and excellent hit and run capabilities made it ideal for high altitude combat patrol. That’s especially true because those fights often didn’t result in much dogfighting anyway.
Graham
Another major factor in the popularity of the SE5a was its stability, which contrasts with the instability of the highly maneuverable Camel. I’ve read accounts from pilots who claimed they were actually even more stable in a dive, making their gunfire even more accurate when using “boom and zoom” tactics.
Makes me wonder if a diving SE5a should have a bonus similar to the Fokkers when “hanging on their prop”.
Some interesting thoughts from pilots that actually flew both the Camel and the SE-
Fred Tully, a test pilot and combat instructor for the RAF during 1918 (he was always terribly disappointed that his repeated requests for front line service were denied). Fred flew everything with wings… even captured DVII’s and Pfalz’s.
Fred preferred the SE 5, claiming that it zoomed better and gave him “top position” whenever he wanted it. He never talked very favorably about the rotaries, which he considered tricky and a pain to fly. He called the SE 5 vs. Camel debate a win for the SE. He called the debate between the SE and the DVII a dead heat, saying that there was “nothing to choose” between them and that “the pilot’s skill” would generally be the determining factor in the outcome if all other things were equal.
Capt. Edward Mannock’s account in “KIng of the Air Fighters” of dog fighting with a Pfalz and tormenting the poor devil. His thoughts on SE vs Camel were, with the S.E.5a you hit what you aimed at. With the Camel and being so twitchy, you hosed the sky.
If you read Ltn. Rudolf Stark’s account of fighting an S.E.5a in his autobiography, “Wings of War”, he very much respected them.
The following discussion is taken from RAF Staff College wartime reminiscences of S/Ldr WS Douglas who commanded No.84 Squadron RFC/RAF from September 1917 to November 1918. The material was found in PRO File AIR1/2386, and it is assumed that the filing system is the same in the UK National Archives that took over from the PRO.
In September 1917, I took overseas a newly formed squadron, No.84, equipped with the S.E.5a.
At this time the S.E.5a, or S.E as it is usually called, was superior in performance to any enemy fighting machine on the front. It therefore possessed what is in my opinion the most essential attribute of any fighting machine designed specifically for fighting purposes. But the S.E. can be credited with many other good qualities of a less transitory nature than its performance. It may therefore be not out of place to discuss here the various qualities requisite in a fighting aeroplane, with special reference to the S.E.: for I think that there is little doubt that the S.E. was the most successful of any of the single-seater fighters that we employed during the war. What then was the secret of its success? What were the qualities that rendered it formidable? They will be found to be, I think, qualities that are not always considered when a fighting machine is being designed or selected.
(a). First, the S.E. was a singularly comfortable machine. The pilot sat in a roomy, well-padded seat, well protected from the wind. The engine was exceptionally silent, and there was little of that nauseating smell of burnt castor oil that is so apt to affect a pilot endowed with a weak stomach.
(b). The pilot has a good view all round.(c). The S.E., unlike the Camel, retained to a large degree its performance at high altitudes.
(d) It was manoeuvrable at high altitudes; unlike the Spad for example, which was difficult to control at heights over 15,000 feet on account of its small wing surface. A pilot should not have to be careful of his flying in the stress and excitement of battle.
(e) It was very steady when diving fast; the pilot could therefore take very careful aim when diving to attack (and nine times out of ten he attacks by diving). This is an advantage pertaining to all stable machines – the faster one dives, the steadier becomes one’s gun platform. An unstable machine like a Camel or a Sopwith Dolphin is apt to ‘hunt’ when dived at high speeds, i.e. to vary its angle of dive from time to time in spite of the pilot’s best endeavours to prevent it. A machine fitted with a rotary engine moreover labours under a still further disadvantage, namely, excessive vibration when diving fast. Good shooting under these circumstances is rendered very difficult.
(f). The S.E. gathered speed very quickly when the stick was pushed forward. The advantage of this is at first sight obscure. It provided, however, a useful method of escape at times to a pilot when hard-pressed. We found that, if for instance a Fokker D.5 (sic) and a S.E. were flying level at the same height, and the S.E. pilot wished to draw out of range (say, to clear a jamb), all he had to do was to push his stick forward and keep his engine running at full throttle. In such circumstances the S.E. would gather speed far more quickly than the Fokker, although in level flight the Fokker was if anything slightly the faster. One was thus sometimes able to draw out of range of the enemy for a few precious seconds.
(g). The S.E had a very fine ‘zoom’, even at high altitudes. This was a very great boon to a pilot in a fight, as, if attacked from the rear, a Zooming turn not only carried him quickly out of the enemy’s lone of fire, but also often left him in a good position to attack his assailant. Similarly, when carrying out low-flying attacks, a timely ‘zoom’ would often carry one up onto comparatively safety when surprised by an enemy machine gun ‘nest’.
(h). The S.E. was strong in design and construction, and did not break up in the air when roughly handled as certain other types were apt to do. Nothing undermines a pilot’s confidence in his machine so much as doubts as to its strength.
(i). The Wolsey Viper engine with which our machines were fitted in March, 1918, was very reliable. An unreliable type of engine has a most adverse effect on morale of a squadron.
The S.E. has often been criticised as being heavy on controls for a single-seater, and so insufficiently manoeuvrable. In the days when aerial fighting was a series of combats between individuals, it is true that the manoeuvrability of the individual machine was all important. In 1918, however, it was no longer the individual pilot but the flight flying in close formation that was the fighting unit; and with distinction will, I think, become more and more pronounced in future wars. In the present development of aerial fighting it is the flight that fights as one unit. Therefore it is the manoeuvrability of the flight that counts, not the manoeuvrability of the individual machine. If then a machine is sufficiently handy (as was the S.E.) to keep its place in the formation in any flight manoeuvre, it is of minor importance whether the machine is individually of a high degree of manoeuvrability or not.
Again in 1918, it was found that supremely quick manoeuvring was nearly always a defensive measure; when attacked the pilot escaped the immediate consequences by swift manoeuvre. The attack on the other hand was usually delivered by a flight formation diving at high speed: so that in attack it was the manoeuvrability of the flight that counted. Now if you have a machine superior in performance to the enemy (as was the S.E. till autumn 1918), and your patrols are well led, you should very rarely be attacked and thrown on the defensive. Instead, you should be able so to manoeuvre your formation, that, by virtue of your superior speed and climb, you yourself are always the attacker; which leads us to the conclusion that if your machines are superior in performance to those of the enemy, manoeuvrability is a very secondary consideration.
The reason why so many pilots insist on supreme manoeuvrability as an essential quality of a fighting machine is usually because they have only flown on active service fighting machines of inferior performance to those of the enemy. For instance the Camel in 1918 was distinctly inferior to the German fighting machines. Camel pilots therefore found their only salvation in the manoeuvrability of their machines. For they could not usually refuse combat when the enemy threatened to attack; they could not retire in order to return and fight under more advantageous conditions; by reason of the inferior speed of their machines they often had to submit to being attacked. They defended themselves by manoeuvring. Thus it is, I think, that some pilots have an exaggerated idea of the importance of manoeuvrability. To me it seems that it is performance that counts – performance is the all important factor.
It was only gradually and after much experiment that the merits and demerits of the S.E. were plumbed. From the first, however, the excellent performance of our machines filled us with confidence, which even the first casualties of inexperience failed to damp.
All very strong points from pilots who flew these aircraft!
Some other interesting info regarding the Lewis gun debate…
The Lewis had higher rate of fire and a smaller “beaten zone” (cone of fire), making it more accurate on a shaking, vibrating airplane
The Vickers had a slower rate of fire to begin with, and the addition of the interrupter gear slowed this still further, to about 375-400 rounds per minute.
The Vickers (Maxim) -type guns using a cloth belt were more prone to jamming, and the configuration of the breech made it sensitive to over- or under-sized cases, which could cause stoppages.
The Lewis design was much less prone to jamming, and less affected by cold temperatures at higher altitudes.Kevan I like the idea of up a table diving bonus! This would also add to the game play of the SE, and encourage people to use a dive and zoom attack in the game… maybe something along the lines of diving at least 300 feet and fly straight in the last 3 squares approaching your target.
Maybe along with the 1600ft dive, the SE could gain a throttle advantage as well, anytime it dives over 1000 ft. you would be allowed to increase throttle by three instead of two – which would reflect all pilots accounts of being able to get away immediately whenever they wanted to…
That Douglas quote is one of the ones I was thinking of. It was driving me nuts trying to remember who said it and where I’d read it.
Those draft rules are along the lines of what I was thinking. They simultaneously encourage SE pilots to try to repeatedly engage and disengage in the “boom and zoom” fashion while encouraging their opponents to try to draw them into twisting dogfights and tailing situations. I think it adds historical accuracy and a new level of strategy, while still being a fairly simple rule.
The question that leads into for me is whether other fighters deserve the same boom and zoom bonus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.