Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2005, 12:43 PM   #1
Phaelen Bleux
World Traveler in Training
 
Phaelen Bleux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Default Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

Sopwith F.1 Camel
Designed in 1916 as a replacement for the Sopwith Pup and Sopwith Triplane, the Sopwith Biplane F.1 (nicknamed the Camel for the hump in the fuselage in front of the cockpit) became one of the most effective and well-known of the British WWI scout/fighters. It was the first British craft to feature twin machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller. It had good maneuverability, and in the hands of an experienced pilot was a deadly weapon--The Camel downed more German aircraft than any other Allied plane (1,294).
The plane was constructed of a wood skeleton, with an aluminum cowling, plywood around the cockpit, and a fabric tail. The engine, pilot, and fuel were all in the forward 7' of the plane. This placed the plane's center of gravity far to the front. This, coupled with the torque of the engine, made the Camel very tricky to fly. Without additional rudder control, the plane wanted to nose down on right turns, and nose up on left turns. In fact, the right-ward torque of the engine made the plane turn so hard to the right, the some pilots would make a 270-degree right turn instead of a 90-degree left turn! Not only was the turn faster, but it tended to confuse opposing pilots. Unfortunately, all of these quirks made the Camel very difficult to learn to fly. In fact, there were almost as many training casualties in the Camel as there were in combat (385 vs. 413).
The Camel was used extensively in 1917 and 1918. They were supplied to the U.S., Belgium, Canada and Greece. About 5,490 of the craft were built. A naval version (the 2F.1) was operated off of the HMS Furious and HMS Pegasus. A night-fighter version featured exhaust flame dampers and a pair of Lewis MGs on the top wing in Foster mounts in place of the usual guns on the nose.
The Sopwith Camel has an endurance of 2½ hours. A full load of fuel and ammo (excluding bombs) costs $10.20.

Subassemblies: Recon Fighter chassis +2; Recon Fighter wings Biplane option +2; 2 fixed wheels +0.
Powertrain: 97-kW aerial HP gasoline engine with 97-kW old prop and 26-gallon fuel tank [Body].
Occ.: 1 XCS Body
Cargo: 8 Body

Armor F RL B T U
Body: 2/2W 2/2W 2/2W 2/2W 2/2W
Wings: 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C
Wheels: 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3

Weaponry:
2xAircraft LMG/.303 Vickers LMG [Body:F] (500 rounds).*
4x25-lb. bombs
*Linked.

Equipment:
Body: 50-lb. hardpoint [Body: L,R]

Statistics:
Size: 28'x18'x8' Payload: 0.25 tons Lwt.: 0.76 tons
Volume: 96 Maint.: 131 hours Cost: $2,348
HT: 7. HPs: 15 Body, 50 each Wing, 8 each Wheel.
aSpeed: 115 aAccel: 3 aDecel: 24 aMR: 6 aSR: 1
Stall Speed: 35 mph.
gSpeed: 180 gAccel: 9 gDecel: 10 gMR: 1.25 gSR: 2
Ground Pressure: High. 1/6 Off-Road Speed.

Design Notes:
The body armor is treated overall as Wooden armor (PD 2, DR 2), despite that some metal and cloth skins were used. aSpeed was increased 15% to the historical. Inexperienced pilots should receive a hefty penalty (-2 to -4) when first trying to fly the Camel. The MG load-outs are a guess; no figures are available; they could be significantly higher with the available VSPs. The MGs are synchronized, lowering RoF by 10% (see p. W:MP8). Given the high calculated gSpeed and the High Ground Pressure, this craft could still just about get airborne in a bumpy field, at the GM's discretion.

Variants:
The F.1/1 featured tapered wings.
The TF.1 was a trench-fighter version with downward firing MGs located in the floor of the cockpit. It never entered production.
The 2F.1 was the naval version. It featured a removable tail for easy stowage.

Fokker Dr I
Impressed with the performance of the Sopwith Triplane, German authorities sought their own version of a three-winged (dreidecker, or Dr) aircraft in 1917. The plane was rushed into production in the spring of 1917, and was on the front lines by October. Safety concerns about shoddy manufacturing of the wings caused the plane to be pulled off the line for over a month, while all the existing planes were checked, and had their wings rebuilt, if necessary. Production ended 6 months later, with only 320 craft having been built.
The Dr I (or V.5, as it was originally called by the manufacturer), performed well in maneuvers, and had an excellent rate of climb. It was not a fast plane, however, and did not perform exceedingly well by the standards of the day. It was, however, the final mount of Manfred von Ricthofen (the Red Baron), making it possibly the most recognizable plane of World War I.
The Dr I has an endurance of 1.5 hours. A full load of fuel and ammo cost $6.40.

Subassemblies: Recon Fighter chassis +2; Recon Fighter wings with Biplane option +2; 2 fixed wheels +0.
Powertrain: 82-kW aerial HP gasoline engine with 82-kW old prop and 7-gallon fuel tank [Body].
Occ.: 1 XCS Body
Cargo: 10 Body

Armor F RL B T U
Body: 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C
Wings: 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C 1/2C
Wheels: 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3

Weaponry:
2xAircraft LMG/7.92mm Spandau 08/15 LMG [Body:F] (500 rounds).*
*Linked.

Statistics:
Size: 23'x19'x9' Payload: 0.14 tons Lwt.: 0.6 tons
Volume: 96 Maint.: 152 hours Cost: $2,323
HT: 7. HPs: 15 Body, 50 each Wing, 8 each Wheel.
aSpeed: 115 aAccel: 5 aDecel: 30 aMR: 7.5 aSR: 1
Stall Speed: 33 mph.
gSpeed: 186 gAccel: 10 gDecel: 10 gMR: 1.25 gSR: 2
Ground Pressure: High. 1/6 Off-Road Speed.

Design Notes:
Although this is a three-winged airplane, the third wing was treated as a "special effect," and biplane wings with the closest SA to the historical 201 sf were selected. aSpeed was increased 20% to the historical. aAccel was increased by 1 to reflect the historical excellence of the plane's climb rate. Planes with defective wings may have a HT of 6. The MG load-outs are a guess; no figures are available; they could be significantly higher with the available VSPs. The MGs are synchronized, lowering RoF by 10% (see p. W:MP8). Given the high calculated gSpeed and the High Ground Pressure, this craft could still just about get airborne in a bumpy field, at the GM's discretion.

Variants:
The V.6 had a longer fuselage and increased span wings to accommodate a heavier 119-kW engine. Its handling characteristics were considerably inferior to the V.5.
The V.7 had a 119-kW engine and a four-bladed prop.
The V.8 was a failed attempted to produce a five (!) winged version.
The V.9 was a biplane version with modifications to the wing struts.
The V.10 has a 108-kW engine with an increased ceiling to 31,170 ft.
Phaelen Bleux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 12:55 PM   #2
The Whiner Knight
 
The Whiner Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

Isn't there a triplane option in WWII? Or did I just see that in Vehicles?

TWK
__________________
TWK

"When the human race is clocked on the stopwatch of history, it's a new record every time."
The Whiner Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 05:49 PM   #3
Phaelen Bleux
World Traveler in Training
 
Phaelen Bleux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

Um, not that I saw. My brother and I are working on a computerized version of the MVDS, so I've been through the rules a couple times. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Phaelen Bleux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2005, 02:52 AM   #4
Michele
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Udine, Italy
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaelen Bleux
Um, not that I saw. My brother and I are working on a computerized version of the MVDS, so I've been through the rules a couple times. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
You are right.
But you don't need it. It's a simple progression. In the MVDS, biplane wings' weight, cost, HPs and surface area are doubled with respect to the standard wings of the same class. There's some rounding up or down.
For triplane wings, I'd just multiply by 3, always rounding up.
I also would make the NO Streamlining option mandatory for triplanes.
When you go to p. W149, you'll have: very low stall speed, short take-off run, excellent maneuver rating but... high drag, and therefore comparatively lower top speed.
__________________
Michele Armellini
GURPS Locations: St. George's Cathedral
Michele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2005, 03:01 AM   #5
copeab
 
copeab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: near Houston
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

My source lists 37 gallons for the Camel.

Also, the middle wing of the Fokker *badly* obstructed the pilot's view to the lower front, especially on landing.

Brandon
copeab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2005, 07:14 AM   #6
The Whiner Knight
 
The Whiner Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

What about high-agility, or STOL options on biplane wings?

In all the pictures I've seen, the three wings are a lot shorter than the wings on Fokker biplanes (and even shorter than those on the Sopwith Triplane), but they may be broader.

But the Dr.I was supposed to whip around in the air quite a bit; its slow speed I've always seen attributed to its underpowered engine.

As for the obstructed view, just give the pilot a penalty on Pilot rolls for landing. If an enemy could figure out the blind spot (as opposed to the normal blind spot below the tail) they could make a Quick Contest with the same penalty -- Pilot vs. Vision -- and stay out of sight.

Are there any rules for similar obstructions on biplanes? The upper wing often had windows designed into it, AFAIK, so there must have been a vision problem. If there are existing rules, you could just adapt them, and say the DR.I has worse problems because it has two wing decks in the way, above and below.

TWK
__________________
TWK

"When the human race is clocked on the stopwatch of history, it's a new record every time."
The Whiner Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2005, 09:36 PM   #7
Phaelen Bleux
World Traveler in Training
 
Phaelen Bleux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Default Re: Snoopy vs. the Red Baron

Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
My source lists 37 gallons for the Camel.

Also, the middle wing of the Fokker *badly* obstructed the pilot's view to the lower front, especially on landing.

Brandon
My source was Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI. It listed 26 gallons.

In regards to biplane vs. triplane wings that Michele brought up, I guess I'd like to ask if reconfiguring the wings would really matter. After all (at least the way I've been doing it so far), all I'm trying to do is get a set of wings with approximately the right SA. For example, does it matter if it's a 3x version of Recon wings of a 2x set of Light Fighter Wings, especially if you are planning on using the historic SA for performance calculations? (Which it seems to me like you should always do, otherwise every plane will end up exactly like every other plane if they are in the same MVDS size category.)
Phaelen Bleux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
vehicle, wwi

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.