PDA

View Full Version : Pfalz!!!!!!



Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 06:12 AM
This is going to be one hell of a sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.gennadich.com/images/311_pic_multi.jpg

F19_Olli72
06-02-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
This is going to be one hell of a sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Yes it will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Though there are no screenies of twoseater cockpits yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I hope for at least a few flyables of those...

Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 06:55 AM
I'd love the Fe2b. Especially if you could man the front observers position and stand on the cockpit coaming firing backwards over the top wing. God only knows how you could model something like that effectively though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

luftluuver
06-02-2006, 06:59 AM
Is this the WW1 'sim' based on the Il-2 engine?

Big thread over at SimHQ on this WW1 'sim'.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 07:10 AM
Yes this is the IL-2 engine item. I have seen either a DH4 or 9A in an advanced state. They will have two-seaters. My personal wish is for several German navy zeps---Bomben auf En-ge-land!

J_Weaver
06-02-2006, 09:21 AM
Oh, man that looks great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I absolutely can't wait to get this sim!

Does anyone have any idea what the system requirements will be?

LEBillfish
06-02-2006, 09:26 AM
Want to see a "really" kewl WWI digital model?

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Miller/render/Albatros/index.html

x6BL_Brando
06-02-2006, 09:41 AM
This is going to be one hell of a sim

OOH YEAH! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now where's that white silk scarf I used for biking? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

B.

Jatro13th
06-02-2006, 10:17 AM
This makes me want to see The Blue Max for the twentieth time!

Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Want to see a "really" kewl WWI digital model?

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Miller/render/Albatros/index.html

Mark Miller is amazing. I hope he finishes that little Nieuport. One of my favourites that.

Deedsundone
06-02-2006, 11:16 AM
Oh yeah!

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 11:29 AM
Mark Miller is an Ace, LEBillfish!

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-02-2006, 11:31 AM
I can honestly say that I am a little more excited about the release of THIS sim than I am about BoB right now. My anticipation for BoB is very tempered due to my own ignorance of many things. Not the least of which is recommended system specs.

Additionally, I know this one will run the IL2 engine. With that in mind, I know my rig will (should) be smooth as silk and I am almost as enamored with the "dawn of Flight" era as I am with the pinnacle of piston-engined flight that was WWII.

Definitely a big fan at this point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

J_Weaver
06-02-2006, 01:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Same here. My rig is still fairly new, (atleast in ym book) I got it last August. I'm concerned that I won't be able to run BoB or at best on its lower settings. I also don't have the money or "want to's " to up grade any time soon.

From what little we've seen so far this sim looks promising. I've been wait many a year for a WWI sim. I hope that this is it!

slo_1_2_3
06-02-2006, 01:11 PM
I'm getting ready for them 80 mile an hour dogfights a tree top height. I'm prolly wrong though they probably all have speeds close to each others so you'd have to follow him for an hour to catch up, either way I stilll want this more than bob , And I assume it'll will prolly be online game right?

Ishmael932
06-02-2006, 01:29 PM
Having flown both with and against Billfish in the Red Baron 3d wars a few years back, I am also looking forward to a real updated WW1 sim.
Then I can rejoin my old squad, the RFC 101 Blackadders, climb in the old cockpit and fly off in my trusty nieuport to battle the hun.

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 01:48 PM
I'm looking forward to hunting Heinkels at night in a Blen I, to passing out at 10,000 feet in a Sopwith Camel, to sinking the Russian fleet at Tsushima, and to blowing up Soviet and German tanks in two different new tank sims (no, not arcade games) due around the fall. I am pleased as punch to have so much promiscuously varied destructive entertainment ahead.

Freelancer-1
06-02-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm lookin' forward to hopping into this baby! It'll be my main ride, for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/Freelancer1/scr6j.jpg

Feel kinda wierd though, using the spaceship controller (X-52) to fly a WWI aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Does anyone know if it will support 6dof with the TrackIR?

Irish_Rogues
06-02-2006, 01:57 PM
Get Slo to build you a new joystick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

PBNA-Boosher
06-02-2006, 03:30 PM
I want my Se.5a! The Albatros D.Va would be nice too.

DuxCorvan
06-02-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
I'm lookin' forward to hopping into this baby! It'll be my main ride, for sure

Sopwith Snipe? You won't have one of those till 1918...

F19_Olli72
06-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
The Albatros D.Va would be nice too.
The Albatros is posted already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.gennadich.com/images/288_pic_multi.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
06-02-2006, 04:06 PM
sure, it would be fantastic (also looking forward to this much more than on BoB)to have them all as flyable, from the Fokker E.I to the Fokker D.VIII (E.V) , from the D.H.2 to the Sopwith Snipe................
but thats impossible. and dont forget, there have to be a game programmed behind all this very goold looking stuff.

i personaly would be ok with a flyable list like this (i think this is already a lot of work !)

Albatros D.III & V
Fokker Dr.I
Fokker D.VII
Halberstadt CL.II
DFW C.V
Gotha G.IV or V

Spad 7 & 13
Nieuport 17
Sopwith Pup
Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter
Sopwith Camel
Sopwith Camel "late" (with Bentley BR.1 engine)
SE.5a
Bristol Fighter F.2B
D.H. 4
Handley Page O/400


to enjoy offline and COOP 1917/1918 campaigns, and i think it will be also give a "balanced" Dogfight server set.........
hell will the Albatrosses propably be slaughtered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NonWonderDog
06-02-2006, 04:12 PM
I'm really looking forward to this one, too, but I hope they branch out in the future into a WWI forgotten battles type thing. It would be fun to fly those ugly horrible Russian planes against the ugly horrible Austrian planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
sinking the Russian fleet at Tsushima....

There is a Russo Japanese sim comming out?

luftluuver
06-02-2006, 06:51 PM
Nice list of pics of WW1 a/c.

http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive1.htm

Other pics as well.

I_KG100_Prien
06-02-2006, 06:56 PM
Can't wait for this baby to come out. It's been a good while since a worthy WW1 Air Combat sim has been on the shelves..

Kind of wish I still had my copy of Red Baron by Dynamix to keep me satiated...

OH heh, this reminds me. I tried out "Richtofen Skies" (or whatever) for Targetware just for grins.. Oh... my.. god.. becky.. look..at.. her..crappy...sim... it's sooooo lame.. Like one of those half-assed console games only worse... (insert intro music to Baby got Back)

***** Yes Stigler, I know a lot of Targetware stuff is still "beta" however, can't polish a turd.********

leitmotiv
06-02-2006, 10:47 PM
Yes, Feathered_IV, this is what looks like the mother of all steel and gun-era naval sims:

http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/se_distantguns.html

Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 11:45 PM
Woohoo! Look out Rozhestvensky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

One thing I always wondered, Togo was trained at the naval academy in England. He graduated second in his year, much to the chagrin of his British teachers. Could there have been a little creative book keeping done if he actually came first?

Looks like a great game. Looking forward to it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
06-03-2006, 12:05 AM
So far there has not been one single screen of any gameplay, or aircraft in flight.

Lots of very nice 3D models though.

Sorry for being a sceptic (I'm just put together that way), but I'd give even odds we never see this sim.

Which would be a great pity, as I really look forward to some good clean dogfighting.

I wonder what kind of data they have for the FMs? Not a lot of verifyable testing was done on WW1 birds you know...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Feathered_IV
06-03-2006, 12:16 AM
Off the top of my head I can think of a few restored or replica types with original powerplants that could furnish data:

Pup (le Rhone, Australia)
Camel (both engine types)
Dr1 (oberursel)
Bristol F2b
LVG (Shuttleworth)
SE5a
Ni-17
Ni-28
Fokker DVII
Fokker DVIII
Bristol M.1 monoplane
Spad VIII

There must be more. Can anyone think of any?

mazexx
06-03-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Nice list of pics of WW1 a/c.

http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive1.htm

Other pics as well.

What a great link! Thanks a lot! To bad it has no sensible navigation at all, just a gigantic heap of great image links http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

/Mazex

The_Gog
06-03-2006, 02:50 AM
Will Australian grond troops be able to kill the Red Baron again?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
06-03-2006, 05:11 AM
Dunno, re Togo and the naval academy, Feathered_IV. He was definitely a character, and definitely smart to be able to go from the 17th century to the 20th century through incredible exertion, application, and study. For an interesting study of him during the R-Japanese War, see KAIGUN by David Evans and Mark Peattie---two ace Japanese history scholars. Apparently, right before Tsushima he was facing a revolt by his top officers who considered him to not be capable of commanding the fleet. Only the discovery of the approaching Russian fleet heading for the Straits had prevented a unprecedented crisis. I am looking forward to that gem, too---hope the follow-on is Jutland!

Totaling out v.R. was truly one of the war-winning achievements of the Australians, The_Gog, albeit, damned underhanded, beastly, unsporting, ungentlemanly, and definitely colonial.

Messaschnitzel
06-03-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Sorry for being a sceptic (I'm just put together that way), but I'd give even odds we never see this sim.

Do you or anybody else remember the Wings With Wires project a while back? It seemed like it was moving right along. There was even a 3D plane viewer that was available for download.

After keeping an eye on the website for a long time, there was finally a notice that the project was put on hold. I tried to get a link to the website www.wingswithwires.com, (http://www.wingswithwires.com,) but the address was apparently unavailable.

Too bad, because this would've been interesting to see, given the quality of the planes that they made so far.

Hopefully the other WWI sims will make it to the store shelves, because I think that most of the sim fans here on the forum would like to fly Stachel's, or Von Klugermann's planes for at least a little while. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ElAurens
06-03-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Off the top of my head I can think of a few restored or replica types with original powerplants that could furnish data:



Feathered, no owner of such a relic is going to allow full instrumented testing at the edge of the envelope. Even if they did the cost of doing the testing would quickly run into the millions of dollars. Not going to happen.

I predict FM flame wars worse than what we have now, because there will be so little real data available to compare to.

Jester_159th
06-03-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Off the top of my head I can think of a few restored or replica types with original powerplants that could furnish data:



Feathered, no owner of such a relic is going to allow full instrumented testing at the edge of the envelope. Even if they did the cost of doing the testing would quickly run into the millions of dollars. Not going to happen.

I predict FM flame wars worse than what we have now, because there will be so little real data available to compare to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There's actually a suprising ammount of technical data still available regarding most of the main types of aircraft used in the First World War.

Takes some finding and you need to know where to look, but the information is there. I suggest you start by checking out sites such as The Aerodrome (http://www.theaerodrome.com/)

DuxCorvan
06-03-2006, 04:41 PM
Well, I guess that they'll take specs from Jane's and other similar sources, including testimonials of particular behavior -many planes were well-known for doing weird things, some very good, most very bad. That's enough for me, but there's going to be a looot of polemics around the never satisfied ultracompetitive DF guys -that will ask more and more 1918 stuff...

BTW, all those flyable replicas have *law obligatory* modifications in order to make them safe to fly. They have to pass safety civil aviation standards to do so. They even forbade a Wright Flyer exact replica to try and fly -a near-to-imposible task- because of that.

For example, fixed star engines are used instead of rotative ones in order to reduce the ruthless torque they had. I don't think that rotative engines exist at all today. Flammable surface tarnish is not there, control surfaces are metallic, they have structural changes and other modifications to make them more durable, stable and easier to fly.

Flying a real WW1 aircraft would be unacceptable in today's safety standards. Most WW1 pilots died in accidents due to terrible flight characteristics or structural weakness. It's been calculated than in 1917, the expentance of life for the medium RFC pilot was about ten hours, and it was not only because of enemy action.

All WW1 aircraft were dangerous to fly, others were true lethal traps, designed to kill their crews or render them sitting ducks, and some even must have flown thru some miracle.

So, no, there are no true flying replicas of WW1 aircraft, just external replicas. Those WW1 guys really had Jedi powers if they could fly and fight in those things and survive. If the game intends to be as realistic as FB in FMs and DMs, this sim is gonna have the steepest learning curve in the History of sims.

ANGELOFMONS1
06-03-2006, 05:15 PM
Just for that extra touch of realism, I plan on downing two massive shots of castor oil half an hour before I play. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Viper2005_
06-03-2006, 05:25 PM
Actually there are a number of WWI aircraft flying around with original engines, including rotaries.

That's what permits to fly are for. These people build the things:

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/NAW1/NAW.HTM

DuxCorvan
06-03-2006, 05:38 PM
By that text it seems obvious that their planes are for display. I don't read anything about flying them.

BTW, with such hand-made method of construction, quality and characteristics sure had to vary a lot, no?

Viper2005_
06-03-2006, 05:46 PM
Read more carefully. The Sopwith triplane is airworthy and has been flying since 1992 (and a very pretty sight it is too!). It is on the UK civil register as G-BOCK.

http://www.airteamimages.com/display.php?phtID=15830

The Shuttleworth collection also flies an original Pup; their oldest airworthy aircraft is a 1909 Bleriot XI...

http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth/index.htm

Feathered_IV
06-03-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I am looking forward to that gem, too---hope the follow-on is Jutland!


I wouldn't say no to an Emden campaign either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ElAurens
06-03-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Jester_159th:

There's actually a suprising ammount of technical data still available regarding most of the main types of aircraft used in the First World War.

Takes some finding and you need to know where to look, but the information is there. I suggest you start by checking out sites such as The Aerodrome (http://www.theaerodrome.com/)

With all respect, tabulated data from a website is not acceptable data for the creation of flight models. Unless of course you want table based FMs.

I see no data on that site about g loading, turn times, roll rates, control input effort, P-factor effect, etc... Not to mention the subtlties of an aircraft's behavior that cannot be gleaned by any other way than flying it in instrumented tests. The kind of tests that were just possible with WW2 era methods.

Will this sim, if it is released, be fun? You bet.

Will it be accurate? Not a chance.

DuxCorvan
06-04-2006, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Read more carefully. The Sopwith triplane is airworthy and has been flying since 1992 (and a very pretty sight it is too!). It is on the UK civil register as G-BOCK.

http://www.airteamimages.com/display.php?phtID=15830

The Shuttleworth collection also flies an original Pup; their oldest airworthy aircraft is a 1909 Bleriot XI...

http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth/index.htm

Interesting. I thought there were no pre-20s active engines arounde there, but I see I was wrong. I also understand they don't leave that Blériot XI take but tiny hops around the field, with its almost 100 year-old 24HP Anzani engine. It was a very special piece of cr*p even back in 1909 when it carried Blériot himself across the Channel. It was more reliable than the 50HP of Latham's 'Antoinette', though, so he won the race.

I thought that most replicas were re-engined with more powerful and reliable engines, such as that Bristol Boxkite.

I have some interesting old 'news magazines' in my former house, dating from 1896 to 1912, and 1911 is completely full of lethal aviation accidents involving most of these pioneers.

At least the Triplane wasn't as tricky and treacherous as the Camel.

leitmotiv
06-04-2006, 07:18 AM
Agree, Feathered_IV---roll on EMDEN, roll on Jutland!

x6BL_Brando
06-04-2006, 08:05 AM
With all respect, tabulated data from a website is not acceptable data for the creation of flight models. Unless of course you want table based FMs.

I see no data on that site about g loading, turn times, roll rates, control input effort, P-factor effect, etc... Not to mention the subtlties of an aircraft's behavior that cannot be gleaned by any other way than flying it in instrumented tests. The kind of tests that were just possible with WW2 era methods.

Will this sim, if it is released, be fun? You bet.

Will it be accurate? Not a chance.

I guess that's one of the aspects of the up-coming sim that I'm really looking forward to - not always having people carefully explain why my x plane couldn't have caught their y plane because some air tests conducted by some engineer at some point in the aircrafts' lives! If I wanted to be a trainspotter I'd buy a notebook, duffel-bag and anorak - and not spend my time explaining how x couldn't possibly have shot down y when x has already completed his victory roll and puttered off.

I certainly hope that the victory roll might be able to rip my wings off to pay me for my recklessness - but whether a stay parts at 25 newtons or 50 newtons, well who cares? Not me at least, so long as no malevolent developer is determined to pork one model contrary to all the available technical and anecdotal information. Hopefully it won't be 'porked' - but I'm sure some anorak is going to tell us all about it, whether or not.

My glass is half full! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

B.

leitmotiv
06-04-2006, 10:11 AM
Absolutely agree, B.

Arkasha_1960
06-04-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:

With all respect, tabulated data from a website is not acceptable data for the creation of flight models. Unless of course you want table based FMs.

I see no data on that site about g loading, turn times, roll rates, control input effort, P-factor effect, etc... Not to mention the subtlties of an aircraft's behavior that cannot be gleaned by any other way than flying it in instrumented tests. The kind of tests that were just possible with WW2 era methods.

Will this sim, if it is released, be fun? You bet.

Will it be accurate? Not a chance.

Well, here's the thing: how would you or anyone else know what's accurate and what isn't? You're not. As you have said, the data isn't there.

So why worry about it?

Viper2005_
06-04-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I have some interesting old 'news magazines' in my former house, dating from 1896 to 1912, and 1911 is completely full of lethal aviation accidents involving most of these pioneers.

At least the Triplane wasn't as tricky and treacherous as the Camel.

Many accidents in the bad old days were caused by bad weather and human factors rather than by the design of the aeroplanes and engines themselves.

However, it is worth pointing out that the chances of walking away from a crash then were much higher than the chances of walking away from a crash in many modern aeroplanes because the speeds were so much lower.

The Camel in particular is much maligned, often for the wrong reasons.

The following is an account of flying a replica;



The Camel was rated by Victor Yeates as:

"a wonderful machine in a scrap..."

And by Major Olver Steward as:

"a treacherous aeroplane - one sided, feverish, vicious ... although it killed many people, it evoked fanatic loyalty from those who flew it ..."

The replica I flew with an original Clerget rotary engine was a wholly remarkable little aeroplane resembling in detail the drawing in Fig. 10.17. The ratio of (tailplane-plus-elevator)/(wing areas) was only about 9%, marginally less than the 10% given in Table 0-5. The ailerons occupied more than average area, while the fin and rudder were also diminutive - roughly 3% of the wing area tail-down and in the wake of the fuselage decking and engine. In terms of geometry alone, when coupled with long wings, features of this kind should alert any test pilot to the likelihood of qualities of a differet, possibly unconventional nature.

Power was controlled by separate air and fuel levers beside the seat on the left-hand side. Because of my long back I was hunched on top of the gun breeches, and unable to see the ASI and tachometer without screwing my head sideways through 90º. The aeroplane had a fixed tailskid, and taxying needed bursts of power to increase the wash over the rudder.

Maximum RPM were slow, around 1100 to 1200 - no more than half those of a modern Lycoming or Continental. The Camel wafted into the air with three skips and a hop, accompanied by a quiet buzz from the large propellor, exhausts and the friendly smell of hot castor oil. The aeroplane had no stability to speak of about any axis. It was all control. Blink, and it was away in the other direction, with instant response to the smallest movement of any control to bring it back again. It could be pointed and slipped with ease in any required direction - what was needed of a gun-platform by a scout pilot.

At high speed it was longitudinally and directionally skittish, too much so by modern standards. Turning to the right the Camel whipped round like a dog chasing its tail, appearing to accomplish this in a diameter little more than its own length. Gyroscopic precession caused the nose to drop, and a conscious touch of elevator was needed to level the turn. Turning left, all was balanced and sedate. The stall was docile; with spin recovery in less than a quarter turn, left and right.

After the first take-off, at 800 ft the engine failed. The warm odour of castor oil was gone. A wire to a spark plug had proken, snagged its free end in the soft aluminium cowling and, as the engine-plus-propeller rotated, like a tight cheese-wire the lead cut the others in turn. The aeroplane floated gracefully on its long wings. The ensuing forced landing had to be made in a crosswind from the left. The Camel landed itself, three-point, emphasizing the advantage of control over stability when it comes to the moment of truth.
Taken from "FLYING QUALITIES AND FLIGHT TESTING OF THE AEROPLANE" by Darrol Stinton ISBN 0-632-05056-X (an excellent book!)

Incidently, the suggested technique for descending through clouds in the Camel (no gyroscopic blind flying instruments remember!) was to put it into a spin and recover upon reaching cloud-base. Pilots were bold in those days.

Of course in the modern world, a Camel with authentic instruments would be strictly a day VMC machine...

Jester_159th
06-05-2006, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jester_159th:

There's actually a suprising ammount of technical data still available regarding most of the main types of aircraft used in the First World War.

Takes some finding and you need to know where to look, but the information is there. I suggest you start by checking out sites such as The Aerodrome (http://www.theaerodrome.com/)

With all respect, tabulated data from a website is not acceptable data for the creation of flight models. Unless of course you want table based FMs.

I see no data on that site about g loading, turn times, roll rates, control input effort, P-factor effect, etc... Not to mention the subtlties of an aircraft's behavior that cannot be gleaned by any other way than flying it in instrumented tests. The kind of tests that were just possible with WW2 era methods.

Will this sim, if it is released, be fun? You bet.

Will it be accurate? Not a chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, I should have said this in my previous post. Register on their forums and try asking some questions. That community includes recognised historians and authors specialising in WW1 aviation.

It's up to you how you look at it though, either the glass is half full or half empty. The one thing about the way you're looking at this is at worst you'll be having problems you expected and at best you'll be pleasantly suprised. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
06-05-2006, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Incidently, the suggested technique for descending through clouds in the Camel (no gyroscopic blind flying instruments remember!) was to put it into a spin and recover upon reaching cloud-base. Pilots were bold in those days.


Oh my! I guess with such an engine stall recovery has to be easy.