Question for the group. The Nieuport 29 failed to make it into the war but is represented in the aircraft data files. When it was released it was a dark green overall-the standard post war scheme. Would the Nieuport 29 been in the five color camouflague instead if it had arrived during the war?? Lang
Question for the group. The Nieuport 29 failed to make it into the war but is
represented in the aircraft data files. When it was released it was a dark
green overall-the standard post war scheme. Would the Nieuport 29 been in the
five color camouflague instead if it had arrived during the war??
Lang
HI all
I like the H&R planes but they are costly the cheapest are Irregular miniatures
which are OK, most planes are single castings for monoplanes or 2 pieces for
biplanes, I mount them on the small flight stands from Games Workshop, and I
think they look OK, but I almost always use 1/144th nowadays.
Cheers
Ron
--- On Thu, 5/11/09, fairage52 <berniesanz@...> wrote:
> From: fairage52 <berniesanz@...>
> Subject: [eaglesmax] RE:1/300 Scale Aircraft
> To: eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Thursday, 5 November, 2009, 12:31 PM
> Hi Gents
>
> I plan on playing this game in 1/300th scale, using a 2"
> hex grid Hotz matt, and wish to know whick
> aircraft/casting/by manufacture is the best. At the top of
> the list, I like CinC. Then to fill in I will use H&R,
> and Skytrex. What are your thoughts on the latter two
> manufactures.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bernie Sanz
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> eaglesmax-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Hi Gents
I plan on playing this game in 1/300th scale, using a 2" hex grid Hotz matt, and
wish to know whick aircraft/casting/by manufacture is the best. At the top of
the list, I like CinC. Then to fill in I will use H&R, and Skytrex. What are
your thoughts on the latter two manufactures.
Thanks
Bernie Sanz
Great looking clouds Neil! Glad I could help.
--- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, "neilhdoghouse" <neil_hughes@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have put up some pictures on my blog of our last Canvas Eagles game. We
tried using clouds (thanks ridersjeff for construction tips!)for the first time
and I have photoshoped some pictures.
>
> http://littleleadmenofvalour.blogspot.com/2009/11/october-wwi-dogfight.html
>
> cheers
>
> Neil
>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM, neilhdoghouse <neil_hughes@...> wrote:
Hello all,
I have put up some pictures on my blog of our last Canvas Eagles game. We tried using clouds (thanks ridersjeff for construction tips!)for the first time and I have photoshoped some pictures.
So the Nieuport 17's heyday was early war, hence the worst stat sheet in the
late war period.
Thats what I am taking from the emails.
Thanks everyone.
>
> HI
> several planes are like this, this is because in period they are OK but if the
same charts were used for the later period then planes like Snipes would have
unwieldy charts so the Nieuports id downgraded to make it weaker than the later
planes, I hope I have made this clear anyway others may post better written
responses.
>
> Cheers
> Ron
HI
several planes are like this, this is because in period they are OK but if the
same charts were used for the later period then planes like Snipes would have
unwieldy charts so the Nieuports id downgraded to make it weaker than the later
planes, I hope I have made this clear anyway others may post better written
responses.
Cheers
Ron
--- On Fri, 30/10/09, hussars5th <fifthhussars@...> wrote:
> From: hussars5th <fifthhussars@...>
> Subject: [eaglesmax] Nieuport 17s
> To: eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Friday, 30 October, 2009, 2:21 AM
> A question about the Nieuport 17
> charts on the Canvas Eagle website.
>
> Which Chart is the correct one for the Nieuport 17?
> The Early War Chart or the Late War Chart? They are
> very different, the Early War 17 is a much better chart than
> the Late War 17.
>
> Thanks for any help any of you can supply.
> cya
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> mailto:eaglesmax-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
__
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
It depends on what year you want to fly the "17". If its after 1917 then you use the late war chart. If before 17 then the Early War Chart is the one to choose.
Victor
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:21 AM, hussars5th <fifthhussars@...> wrote:
A question about the Nieuport 17 charts on the Canvas Eagle website.
Which Chart is the correct one for the Nieuport 17? The Early War Chart or the Late War Chart? They are very different, the Early War 17 is a much better chart than the Late War 17.
Thanks for any help any of you can supply.
cya
-- "In un mondo di ciechi un orbo 'e re." "In a world of blind people, a one-eyed man is king."
A question about the Nieuport 17 charts on the Canvas Eagle website.
Which Chart is the correct one for the Nieuport 17? The Early War Chart or the
Late War Chart? They are very different, the Early War 17 is a much better
chart than the Late War 17.
Thanks for any help any of you can supply.
cya
Radio shack has discontinued a very nice telescoping antenna. You may be able to
find it at your local store and thay may be able to ship some in for you from
your surrounding area, to save you some travel. It is a Replacement Hobby/RC
Antenna. It collapses to 5 inches (13 cm) and expands to 38 inches (nearly a
meter). It has 11 sections and seems rather sturdy. I use cast metal bases
(floor flanges)for stability and it can hold a 1/72 Gotha with just a small
amount of bow in the antenna. The cost in my area was just $1.97 for a item that
regularly ran almost $10.00. Great Bargain! Item # 270-1418. I could not find it
online, only at store level. Hope this info is useful to someone.
John
Early war and late war charts are literally on a different scale. The difference in performance as the war progressed that some late war aircraft would have charts with speeds like 5 or 6, and would be "cramped" on an early war scale playing area. So the scale was altered and the relative performance of the early aircraft was reduced accordingly in the late war charts.
John Simanton
In a message dated 10/13/2009 6:37:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rictavian@... writes:
Well, son of a gun, how about that. Now, this leads to another question: why the difference?
--- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, "Rictavian" <rictavian@...> wrote: > > Hmmmmm, let me recheck. Thanks > > > --- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Fellows <jonfel14@> wrote: > > > > The Albatros D-III is significantly more manueverable at Speed 2 than is the > > D-II. The D-II is sturdier and can dive farther but the D-III is the better > > dogfighter. Are you comparing the Early War D-II chart to the Late War > > D-III chart? There are two charts for the Albatros D-II -- Early War for > > 1916 scenarios, and Late War for 1917 scenarios. Since the D-III entered > > service in January 1917, there's no Early War chart for it. > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rictavian <rictavian@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm new to this set of rules but it seems that the Al;batros DII seems > > > superior to the D III. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Fellows > > > > 'Bother,' said Pooh, as the bullpen blew another one. > > >
The proposed DIV was promising but never got past the prototype stage, it basically combined a new fuselage (which was ultimately used on the DV/DVa) with the biplane wings of the DII as opposed to the sesquiplane wings of the DIII. Result would probably have been similar in performance to the DIII without the fatal wing weakness which cost the lives of a number of German pilots. It would definitely have given the pilot much wider latitude in diving out of trouble. It was cancelled, not due to any design flaw, but to the decision to fit it with a geared version of the 160hp Mercedes which never got the bugs worked out and the whole project was scrapped.
(Cowin, Hugh W., German and Austrian Aviation of World War I, Osprey Aviation, Oxford, 2000)
John Simanton
In a message dated 10/13/2009 5:43:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jonfel14@... writes:
The Albatros D-III is significantly more manueverable at Speed 2 than is the D-II. The D-II is sturdier and can dive farther but the D-III is the better dogfighter. Are you comparing the Early War D-II chart to the Late War D-III chart? There are two charts for the Albatros D-II -- Early War for 1916 scenarios, and Late War for 1917 scenarios. Since the D-III entered service in January 1917, there's no Early War chart for it.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rictavian <rictavian@cox.net> wrote:
I'm new to this set of rules but it seems that the Al;batros DII seems superior to the D III.
-- Jonathan Fellows
'Bother,' said Pooh, as the bullpen blew another one.
The manin rules have been completely translated to Spanish and uploaded.
Please post or e-mail me any comment or error found on this translation so I can
fix it.
Enjoy!
Carlos
Well, son of a gun, how about that. Now, this leads to another question: why
the difference?
--- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, "Rictavian" <rictavian@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm, let me recheck. Thanks
>
>
> --- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Fellows <jonfel14@> wrote:
> >
> > The Albatros D-III is significantly more manueverable at Speed 2 than is the
> > D-II. The D-II is sturdier and can dive farther but the D-III is the better
> > dogfighter. Are you comparing the Early War D-II chart to the Late War
> > D-III chart? There are two charts for the Albatros D-II -- Early War for
> > 1916 scenarios, and Late War for 1917 scenarios. Since the D-III entered
> > service in January 1917, there's no Early War chart for it.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rictavian <rictavian@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm new to this set of rules but it seems that the Al;batros DII seems
> > > superior to the D III.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Fellows
> >
> > 'Bother,' said Pooh, as the bullpen blew another one.
> >
>
Hmmmmm, let me recheck. Thanks
--- In eaglesmax@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Fellows <jonfel14@...> wrote:
>
> The Albatros D-III is significantly more manueverable at Speed 2 than is the
> D-II. The D-II is sturdier and can dive farther but the D-III is the better
> dogfighter. Are you comparing the Early War D-II chart to the Late War
> D-III chart? There are two charts for the Albatros D-II -- Early War for
> 1916 scenarios, and Late War for 1917 scenarios. Since the D-III entered
> service in January 1917, there's no Early War chart for it.
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rictavian <rictavian@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm new to this set of rules but it seems that the Al;batros DII seems
> > superior to the D III.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Fellows
>
> 'Bother,' said Pooh, as the bullpen blew another one.
>
The Albatros D-III is significantly more manueverable at Speed 2 than is the D-II. The D-II is sturdier and can dive farther but the D-III is the better dogfighter. Are you comparing the Early War D-II chart to the Late War D-III chart? There are two charts for the Albatros D-II -- Early War for 1916 scenarios, and Late War for 1917 scenarios. Since the D-III entered service in January 1917, there's no Early War chart for it.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Rictavian <rictavian@...> wrote:
I'm new to this set of rules but it seems that the Al;batros DII seems superior to the D III.
-- Jonathan Fellows
'Bother,' said Pooh, as the bullpen blew another one.
As I recall, the Breguet 14B2 had the option of a downward firing
Lewis gun. The gun may not have been added on all missions, but it
had the potential to mount a Lewis gun through a small opening/window
located on the floor beneath where the rear gunner was positioned.
E.H.
>greetings from France, where BM/CE is still very popular!
>
>On the Breguet Maneuver Schedule, there's mention of a downward
>firing lewis gun.
>
>Caudron R11, escorting Breguet 14B2 in bombing missions, had this
>sort of mounting (a early flying fortress, very fast, with 5 Lewis
>guns !!!)... but Breguet?
>
>Anybody can confirm that Breguet had a downward firing lewis gun?
>
>This sentence is quite confusing too: "If players want to arm the
>aircraft with a single rear firing Lewis gun, use fire template B
>for its fire arc, but use template C for its combat value"
>Do the rear firing Lewis gun refers to the downward firing lewis gun?
greetings from France, where BM/CE is still very popular!
On the Breguet Maneuver Schedule, there's mention of a downward firing lewis
gun.
Caudron R11, escorting Breguet 14B2 in bombing missions, had this sort of
mounting (a early flying fortress, very fast, with 5 Lewis guns !!!)... but
Breguet?
Anybody can confirm that Breguet had a downward firing lewis gun?
This sentence is quite confusing too: "If players want to arm the aircraft with
a single rear firing Lewis gun, use fire template B for its fire arc, but use
template C for its combat value"
Do the rear firing Lewis gun refers to the downward firing lewis gun?
As I'm still finishing the translation of the Main Rules to Spanish, I've
uploaded some other files that are already translated (Combat and damage tables,
red and blue damage tables, markers and tailing cards...)
I hope you'll find it useful.
As it is and amateur translation I ask anyone who find a mistake to contact me
so I can fix it as soon as possible.
Best regards and have a nice flight