Cropped cut of "Strahle's Broken Bird" painted by Russell Smith. View the full version here.
How this article came to be...
It's no secret that I have a love for WW1 flight simulators. For nearly a decade, I've been happily soaring above the virtual clouds — first in Rise of Flight and now in its spiritual successor Flying Circus. Flying Circus is in many ways a huge step forward from Rise of Flight, with superior graphics, Mission Editor options, VR support, and now even new aircraft that have not been included with Rise of Flight before. It has the potential to become hands-down the most immersive Great War aviation simulator ever created — which as you can imagine is incredibly-exciting! However, one issue that has stood out to me has been the damage model. As things stand, only a few bullets scattered anywhere on the wings of certain aircraft seems to have the effect of cutting in half the amount of Gs they can sustain before the wings pull off. I've seen this happen to many of my virtual opponents and have had the occurrence happen to myself several times as well.
(Note: the wing shedding bug is almost exclusively seen in multiplayer vs other pilots, as the AI seems to be able to read the damage algorithm and tends to fly very conservatively, with no moderate-to-strenuous turns, if hit at all.)
When it first started happening after a damage model update to the sim, I first thought that I was merely not used to the increased probability of wing-shedding because Rise of Flight didn't have as severe a chance of wings being pulled off. But then, as time passed and I began to discuss my thoughts with other sim pilots, I started to wonder if the high likelihood of wing shedding was, in fact, historically-inaccurate.
This started me on a quest not so much to prove a point, but rather to embark on a journey of discovery. I wanted to see for myself what the historical consensus was. So, I started digging around the history books and periodicals on my bookshelf. I asked pilots on the forums where I could find combat reports and was pointed to a wealth of resources in the British National Archives and USAS Archives. I (and the pilots who helped contribute to this article) slowly began going through the slough of combat reports, categorizing the results to see if trends would emerge. And emerge they did...
While by no means exhaustive, this article seeks to discover how exactly WW1 aircraft met their demise. How often did they fall from the sky, bereft of wings like lawn darts? What were the odds that the day's latest kill would spiral to the ground with the pilot already dead in the cockpit? What rough percent of the time did they go out in a blaze of glory "on fire... like a meteor through the sky"? (Lewis 155) This article seeks to answer that.
Selecting the sources
With historical data this old, it is relatively impossible to get precise measurements of exactly which G loads WW1 aircraft could withstand before the wings came off. Cecil Lewis (who was a test pilot for the RFC during the war) wrote concerning this:
"Nowadays [circa 1936] it would be possible (though somewhat costly) to dive a machine until it reached the breaking point, if any, and for the pilot to jump clear in his parachute. But in those days pilots' parachutes did not exist, so we did not carry our tests quite that far." (118)
Given the dearth of hard data that spells out exactly which G load and under what sort of damage the wings would come off an airplane, I believe the best resource we have is to look at the reports of the pilots themselves. One or two quotes cherry picked here and there aren't helpful though. In order to be taken seriously, data of this sort has to be amassed in a large enough quantity from differing sources to where we can see patterns start to emerge.
This is exactly what I've attempted to do here.
Reliability of the source material
One admitted danger of using first-person narratives is that they can be unreliable on their own. That is why in my research I corroborated multiple first-person accounts from pilots on both sides of the trenches, to see which general themes emerged. In addition, I drew quotes from scholarly articles featured in reputable journals (such as Over the Front and Iron Cross) and other notable reference books. Finally, where possible, I and those who assisted me have dug through hundreds of actual air combat reports in the British and US government archives.
With each of the secondary sources used in this report, I have tried to select ones known for authenticity, relying on quotations from the aviators themselves whenever possible. (In a case regarding a quote from a memoir that was demonstrably ghostwritten, an explanation is given as to why I believe that excerpt should be taken seriously.) Of course, primary source documents, such as the air combat reports, speak for themselves.
In using these sources to put together a microcosm of the whole, I believe we can get an accurate feel for how WW1 aircraft tended to be destroyed in combat.
My methodology
The data below was pulled from these sources:
No. 46 Squadron Combat reports (found in the British National Archives)
94th squadron combat reports (found at Fold3.com)
Post war USAS POW reports (found at Fold3.com)
Georges Guynemer, Knight of the Air by Henry Bordeaux
Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces: Böhome, Müller, von Tutsheck, and Wolff, The Complete Record of Their Victories and Victims by Norman Franks and Hal Giblin
Under the Guns of the Red Baron: The Complete Record of Von Richthofen's Victories and Victims by Norman Franks and Hal Giblin
When going through combat reports or diary entries, the most consistent description of bringing an aircraft down I found was these three simple words: "out of control." However, not all "out of control" claims were equal. Some gave much more supporting evidence. Others were content to leave it at that. This being the case, I've divided my "out of control" criteria into two categories:
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have:
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure:
The first category is where I collected all claims where the out of control aircraft was either seen to crash or very likely to have crashed, such as diving straight down into the ground mist 500 feet above the ground. The second category is where I placed aircraft who were seen to be spiraling out of control but not observed to crash. I did not include aircraft that were attacked but dove away under control to escape in this figure. I also did not include aircraft that were claimed as "out of control" but verified by another source to have successfully returned to base, as in these cases their fate was not unsure.
One final place I would put out of control aircraft was in the "Confirmed pilot kill or almost certainly a pilot kill" category. I rarely did this, and only did so when the combat report read something like "tracers seen to enter the cockpit, EA jerked suddenly up and then fell out of control."
When compiling the statistics, I also made sure to place downed aircraft in only one category. Thus, each number in each category stands for one aircraft. If, for instance, an aircraft was sent down in flames and with wings off, I put the first of the two fatal instances down as the primary category. Then, next to the category, I would add in parentheses the secondary cause of destruction. For instance...
- On fire: 5 (+1 wing loss)
This would mean that of the 5 aircraft in this column that went down on fire, 1 of them also experienced wing loss.
Finally, I did not include any aircraft from engagements that were inconclusive, aircraft that collided with each other, or aircraft that crashed at their home aerodrome upon landing in my totals. Only aircraft that had been destroyed by enemy fire in combat counted towards these totals.
The data
No.46 squadron combat reports, late 1917-1918. 101 combat reports examined. 128 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat.
- Wings off: 6 (+1 on fire)
- On fire: 11 (+1 wing loss)
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have: 37
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure: 67
- Confirmed pilot kill or almost certainly a pilot kill: 3
- Forced to land or crash land: 4
94th squadron reports. 45 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat. (Thank-you to US93_Larner on the Il-2 forums for compiling these and sending them to me.)
- Wings off: 0
- On fire: 9
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have: 7 (including 1 parachute jump)
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure: 24
- Forced to land or crash landed: 5
Post war USAS POW reports. 105 reports total. 75 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat. (Thank-you to US213_Talbot on the Il-2 forums for compiling these and sending them to me.)
- Wings off: 1
- On fire: 6
- Out of control: 13
- Control cables severed: 4
- Forced to land or crash land: 9
- Engine destroyed or fuel hit to starve engine: 42
Note: As most pilots would not have survived wing loss or being set afire, survivor's bias is worth noting in this report. Also, note the high percentage of engine failures. To the outward observer, watching a foe with a stricken engine losing altitude, he more than likely would have claimed the aircraft as out of control or forced to land. A final thing to note with this report is that in this case, each of the "out of control" aircraft was definitely brought down. Therefore, in each of the 13 "out of control" cases, something had to bring them down. I think a mixture of control cables being hit, pilot injured, engine hit, or possibly even pilot error seems like a reasonable theory.
Georges Guynemer, Knight of the Air by Henry Bordeaux. 68 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat.
- Wings off: 2
- On fire: 28 (+1 pilot kill and +1 wing loss)
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have: 7
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure: 13
- Destroyed, cause not stated: 6
- Confirmed pilot kill or almost certainly a pilot kill: 3
- Forced to land or crash land: 9
Note: This source has a disproportionately large "on fire" category. When attacking aircraft, Guynemer opened fire within 10 meters much of the time. No.46 squadron typically didn't wait to open fire until that close, often firing from 100 feet (roughly 30 meters). This could be a possible reason as to why Guynemer records more aircraft on fire. Also, Guynemer doesn't make much mention of aircraft going down smoking. It is possible some that were merely smoking, he considered "on fire." Then again, it could also be possible that some of the aircraft in No. 46 squadron's reports that were claimed as "out of control, smoking" may also have been on fire.
Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces by Norman Franks and Hal Giblin. 186 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat.
- Wings off: 3
- On fire: 17 (+2 forced landing & +1 wing off)
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have: 42 (+1 wings buckled, not fully torn off)
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure: 11
- Destroyed, cause not stated: 60
- Confirmed pilot kill or almost certainly a pilot kill: 7
- Forced to land or crash land: 46
Note: This source has a higher-than-average count of "Destroyed, cause not stated." However, comparing the data here with those of the other reports, I believe it is not unreasonable to attribute these to a similar ratio of destruction types exhibited in the other reports.
Also noteworthy is the higher-than-average number of forced landings in this source. While reading this source, many of the aircraft that were "forced to crash land" were caused to do so because of pilot wounding, engine damage, or control cables being shot away — resulting in a thoroughly-wrecked plane at the conclusion of the "landing". A trend I've noticed is that British and American aviators tend to use the "out of control" language a lot while German aviators (at least in this source) tend to use the "forced down" or "forced to land" nomenclature frequently.
Under the Guns of the Red Baron by Norman Franks and Hal Giblin. 78 instances of aircraft sustaining critical damage in combat. (Thank-you to JG1_Dudley on the JG1 forums for compiling these results and sending them to me.)
- Wings off: 13 (+2 on fire)
- On fire: 15
- Out of control, crashed or likely to have: 27 (+2 on fire & +1 wing off)
- Out of control, not seen to crash or fate unsure: 0
- Destroyed, cause not stated: 1
- Confirmed pilot kill or almost certainly a pilot kill: 5 (+1 on fire who also lost wings thereafter)
- Forced to land or crash land: 17
Note: This source has, by far, the largest number of disintegrations percentage-wise. Also worthy of note is the high percentage of aircraft who also caught fire, as also seen in Guynemer's records. I have heard it argued that von Richthofen was not a particularly-spectacular pilot so much as he was a deadeye shot. Looking over his compiled reports, I am prone to give credence to this. I can see similar trends in his records as compared to Guynemer's. Both of them had the ability to hone in on the critical points of their victims and obliterate them in short order. Compared to the average No. 46 pilot or USAS pilot, these two gentlemen would have been far deadlier. We must take this into account when weighing their reports against the others.
The one discrepancy between von Richthofen and Guynemer's reports is that von Richthofen claims a far greater percentage of wings shot off than Guynemer. Looking for a similar trend in the cases where the wings came off, I did notice that roughly 50% of von Richthofen's victims to perish in such a way (6 aircraft, to be precise) were all variants of the Be2 family of aircraft from the Be2d onwards. The Vintage Aviator's report on these aircraft states:
"It is widely reported that the BE2d gained a miserable reputation amongst pilots for being structurally weak and breaking under the strain of violent maneuvers. This continued to haunt the BE2 series despite there being no real proof of its frailty." (“Be.2 (Family) History.”)
I would venture to say that looking at von Richthofen's combat reports offers a grim counterpoint to the claim of "there being no real proof" of this.
However, even with this caveat, the fact remains that there are still more wing losses percentage-wise in this source than any other I've examined. Given that all the other reports (excluding the POW reports on basis of survivor's bias) have 14 wing losses to 427 instances of aircraft destroyed (only about 3.27%), I'm inclined to believe this is more normative. Even for the most skilled of Aces, luck still played a factor. It may be that more aircraft fell apart for Richthofen because of a mixture of gunnery skill and happenstance. This is why it is important not to base research one only one source. In comparing and contrasting many diverse sources, we can reach a more accurate conclusion.
Engine and fuel tank damage explored
It is no secret that in the phenomenon of powered flight, if the power is cut, flight shall not long persist either. As light as WW1 aircraft were compared to the flying tanks of today, they still represented a hefty amount of weight for gravity to pull on. Thus, as all WW1 pilots knew, if the engine became damaged, it was high time to disengage and creep back to the aerodrome... if they could even make it that far. The situation became even worse if one was over enemy lines when the engine conked.
Engines in WW1 were notoriously unreliable. Squadrons were rarely able to field their full roster due to the high rate of engine damages. Sometimes these were due to combat, sometimes these were due to pilot error (such as overrevving in a dive), and sometimes they seemed to go out for no apparent reason at all!
As far as random engine failures go, I don't think simulating this would be the best thing for Flying Circus. It certainly would be more accurate, but it would take away some of the "fun factor" for some pilots. If it were to be simulated, I think it should be an option that mission builders can decide to have switched on or off, much like the "warmed up engines" option we have now. (In reality, WW1 aircraft usually needed several minutes to warm the engine up prior to take off. Most server operators have this switched off as flying flight simulators is time consuming enough already without having pilots wait further time before even taking off. Hardcore sim pilots certainly wouldn't mind, but on servers trying to cater to a large audience, it is a fair compromise. I see random engine failures being the same way, if they were to be modeled down the line.)
Random failures aside, Flying Circus simulates engine damage quite well. Damaged engines in the sim have degrees of damage. Moderately damaged engines can last a long time if nursed appropriately (often by flying at 80% power). Severely damaged engines will not last you long, however, and will also throw oil into your face if you lean over the side of the virtual cockpit.
Fuel tank damage is handled well in Flying Circus too. If you are wondering if your fuel tank has been holed, just looking behind you will tell you all you need to know. If you see a ghostly wisp of thin vapor trailing behind you, you had better start thinking of where to come down — and fast! Your fuel gauge will still tell you how much fuel you have left, but you will start to see it falling at an alarming rate.
One thing that I think may not be simulated often enough in Flying Circus is the danger of perforated fuel tanks leading to an increased risk of fire. Sometimes, if a fuel tank was hit, gasoline would start to fill the cockpit and (even more worrisomely) possibly spatter onto other parts of the aircraft as well:
"...something hit my machine. It became clear to me that I had been hit or rather my machine. At the same time I noticed a fearful benzine stench and I observed my motor was running slack. The Englishman noticed it, too, for he started shooting with redoubled energy while I had to stop it.
I went right down. Instinctively I switched off the engine and indeed it was high time to do this. When a pilot's benzine tank has been perforated, and when the infernal liquid is squirting around his legs, the danger of fire is very great. In front is an explosion engine of more than 150 h.p. which is red hot. If a single drop of benzine should fall on it the whole machine should be in flames.
I left in the air a thin white cloud. I knew its meaning from my enemies. Its appearance is the first sign of a coming explosion." (von Richthofen 54)
Note: "The Red Battle Flyer" was largely ghostwritten by Erich von Salzmann (Voigt 8). Despite this, I believe this passage is generally reliable because most people in that period would not have been familiar with the intricacies of how aircraft worked. Richthofen would have been intimately acquainted with the dangers posed by a perforated fuel tank and, since the Ace survived to score 80 victories before his death, would have had the good sense to escape before it was too late. Whether or not von Richthofen meant that an aircraft would go up in flames or literally explode to pieces upon fuel being ignited remains for me to discover. I'm strongly tempted to believe that nine times out of ten, the former was the case.
Set ablaze explored
Without a doubt, going down in flames was the most-feared way to perish for WW1 pilots. Rather than face a death akin to being burnt at the stake in a more barbaric age, some pilots opted to jump to their deaths or finish themselves off with a sidearm.
"The fuel line is spraying merrily and the slipstream is blowing strongly into it, although I let the crate sag properly. And now my pant-legs, torn to rags by my own machine gun bullets [this pilot's incendiary ammunition exploded due to heat from a fire] and soaked with fuel, begin to catch fire. First the left, then also the right. The hairs on my fur gloves begin to curl in the increasing heat. The right glass in my goggles cracks; the lattice of cracks robs me of all vision. And the the flickering blaze strikes me right in the face, which fortunately is covered by the leather mask for protection against frost.
Away! Away! Get away from the fire! Just get away! Burning must be a horrible death! Out of the smoking machine, which is now threatening to become my funeral pyre! For a moment I lost myself! My purely animal survival instinct pulls at me. It defends against the violent destruction of my body and especially this grisly form of annihilation. I want to stand up! I must stand up! Won't anyone help me? I pull, rip, lift up, but don't get out. I'm burning!" (Gustav Praclik, quoted in Taylor and Wait)
Unfortunately for the pilots, being set on fire occurred with a fair bit of regularity over the front — especially since their aircraft were nothing more than wood and canvas contraptions covered with highly-flammable dope. Based on my sample, about 15.69% of air fatalities involved fire.
Of course, more attractive than a long jump or a bullet to the head would be the idea of preventing a fire altogether. Many aviators (including Guynemer and von Richthofen) habitually switched off their engines to avoid flames if their fuel tanks were perforated or if they were in danger of crash-landing. (von Richthofen 54) (Bordeaux 179)
However, one source posits that this may be more due to superstition than actual mechanical knowledge. The editors of the version of "The Red Battle Flyer" that I own included this footnote below von Richthofen's p. 54 entry:
"This is a mistaken idea, common to many pilots who are not motor engineers. Fire in such cases is caused by petrol or petrol vapour [sic] being set alight by a spark from the magneto, which because the air-screw is still revolving continues to generate sparks internally even when switched off. A mere red-hot pipe in an engine would not cause petrol fire." (von Richthofen 54)
To explore this question further, I queried the members of the WW1 Aircraft & Pilots Facebook group. The members of this group have consistently impressed me with their knowledge of niche elements and their dedication to preserving the history of WW1 aviation. Based on the ensuing conversation, I believe that there is some truth to both sides of the argument. Given that the flashpoint of gasoline is fairly low, contact with a red-hot engine or exhaust could definitely be enough to do the trick. But there could be circumstances (dependent on the amount of castor oil leakage in the mix, the temperature of the engine block, and the amount of gasoline that actually impacted the hot area) where such contact would not go up in flames. Exposure to a spark would be a much more surefire way (pardon the pun...) to start a fire. This is why some pilots switched off both engine and magnetos to avoid a fire.
Regardless of whether switching an engine off decreases the likelihood of fire or not, I believe the percentage of fires caused by combat damage should be slightly increased in Flying Circus. Visually, Flying Circus' modeling of this is very immersive. There is nothing more terrifying than seeing flames start out small but then proceed to lick their way towards the cockpit from the burning engine. But this rarely occurs in both multiplayer and singleplayer.
Pilot wounding explored
By far the most efficient way to dispose of an enemy aircraft was to kill or knock out the pilot. Compared to other methods, getting a kill this way only required one bullet, well-placed.
"Lt. Preston dived on [an Albatros] firing 150 rds. from 100 yds. to point blank range. Lt. Preston saw his tracer entering the pilot's cockpit and was close enough to see the pilot start back in his seat on being hit. After a few more rounds E.A. stalled up and fell out to the left and went down in a spin completely out of control." (No. 46 squadron combat report, June 2, 1918)
In most cases, pilots hit in such manner would be unable to recover. They would either be dead outright, bleeding out and dying, or knocked unconscious, as was 2nd Lt. Charles F. Nash of the 93rd Aerosquadron. Recalling how he became a prisoner of war, Nash reported that he was "hit in left arm and shoulder and lost consciousness in air at 700m." (Compiled USAS POW reports)
Nonetheless, in rare cases, unconscious pilots would be able to come round and recover control of their plane, as did Manfred von Richthofen on July 6, 1917:
"...a bullet struck Richthofen's head on the left-rear side and glanced off his skull, immediately paralysing [sic] him and rendering him blind. ...As his Albatros spun down, Richthofen miraculously regained control long enough [to] get down in a field near Comines." (Schäfer 18)
Sometimes, "wounds" dealt to pilots were nothing more than a minor annoyance and in no way affected their ability to pilot an aircraft:
"Evidentially, my sudden spin had bluffed him [a Pfalz... possibly a D.XII or a D.III with a 200hp D.IIIaü engine]. Seeing [my] machine apparently out of control, he thought he had got me, and did not follow. ...My back burned terribly. I tried to feel it. Was it bleeding? My shirt seemed sticky. I worked my shoulder tentatively. It ached, that was all. Nothing serious, probably; still, I had better get off to the aerodrome and see. ...I called in a friend and undressed. A long red furrow had seared my back. A six inch graze. No more." (Lewis 147-148)
In looking at the simulation side of things, Flying Circus handles this aspect of the damage model very, very well (with one exception, discussed below). Rise of Flight (Flying Circus' predecessor) had a system where the pilot model needed to be tagged four times before it died, no matter where it was shot. Flying Circus has a much more realistic pilot damage model. One bullet to the head or a vital organ is all it takes. In other areas, such as extremities or a when a glancing blow is dealt, one or two bullets will only cause a minor inconvenience.
If a pilot is seriously wounded, his ability to control the aircraft goes down to nil, and he cannot even bail out, if he has the option of a parachute. Also, if a pilot is wounded seriously enough, he will lose consciousness for a time before coming to again. How long he remains unconscious is based on the seriousness of the wound and the type of Gs his plane pulls while it is out of control. In most cases, if the pilot is unconscious, he will crash into the ground much like 2nd Lt. Nash. However, in rare cases, he may be able to come around and control his plane into a forced landing as did von Richthofen. All in all, it feels like yet another dynamic detail Flying Circus includes to make the experience that much more immersive.
Before I close and move on to the next section, I would like to note that the increased likelihood of serious pilot injury or death in collisions with the ground introduced on September 21, 2021 seems slightly out of proportion compared to what I've read in my research. Too many of the accounts I've read (including 2nd Lt. Nash, who spun unconscious into the ground from 700 meters and survived) bear witness to planes that touched down extremely roughly or who caught low-lying obstacles with the landing gear while taking off and went "arsy-tarsy" (Lewis 13) — all without killing the pilot.
However, in Flying Circus currently a bounce on landing will seriously wound or kill your pilot and clipping an obstacle with the edge of your wing is usually fatal. Compare that to this quote from Guynemer after his crash landing on September 23, 1916:
"...the trees of the Hesse forest came in sight; in fact, they seemed to approach at a dizzy rate of speed. I switched off so as not to catch fire, and a few meters before reaching the trees I nosed up my machine with all my strength so that it would fall flat. There was a terrible shock! One tree higher than the rest broke my right wings, and made me turn as if I were on a pivot. I closed my eyes. There was a second shock, less violent than I could have hoped: the machine fell on its nose like a stone, at the foot of the tree which had stopped me. I... let myself slip onto the ground, amazed not to be suffering intense agony. The only bad effects were that my hand was heavy, and blood was flowing through my mask. I breathed, coughed, and shook my arms and legs, and was dumbfounded to find that all my faculties functioned normally..." (Bordeaux 179)
I think the developers went in the right direction with this improvement, as shock (simulating whiplash or sudden trauma) does need to be simulated. That being said, my gut feeling is that the current shock calculations are slightly too aggressive for WW1 simulations, making a higher-than-accurate percentage of crash landings fatal.
Control cable loss explored
As I mentioned in the "data" section, the most frequent terminology I found used to describe downed aircraft was "out of control." In the sections immediately above, I explored how engine damage and pilot hits contributed to that factor. Now, I will briefly turn my attention to the other major factor to a plane going down out of control: the control cables being severed.
WW1 aircraft rarely had armor plating, which meant that incoming bullets often would pass through the fabric parts of the plane to strike more vital components. Control cables were frighteningly un-exempt from this! Imagine spiraling earthward... perfectly unhurt and conscious but unable to do anything to stop the maddening death-spiral. Not a pretty thought at all, but one that happened often enough over the front. Reading combat reports like the one below paints a vivid picture:
"...Lt. Dodson attacked [a Fokker Dr 1] firing 150 rounds and [sic] 50 yards range. E.A. pulled up, stalled and went into a spin. After 1000 ft. or so E.A. came out of spin and then went into another as though his controls had been shot away. He went down spinning, recovering and then again spinning till he attempted to land at 36a W 5 central, but turned over and crashed hopelessly in doing so." (No. 46 squadron combat report, May 9, 1918)
However, control cables wouldn't always be taken out of commission upon the first hit. This is especially true of certain aircraft that had backup control cables. For instance, after nearly being shot down in combat, British pilot Cecil Lewis recalls:
"I climbed gingerly out of the machine. The body was well shot up, a longeron had two big holes in it, one elevator wire was cut, but the duplicate controls had saved me." (Lewis 148)
Even if there were no backup cables, sometimes it would take more than one blow to finish a cable off, as French Ace Georges Guynemer recounts:
"I came back with an intake pipe burst, one rocker torn away: the splinters had made a number of holes in my over-coat and two notches in the propeller. There were three more in one wheel, in the body-frame (injuring a cable), and in the rudder." (Bordeaux 130)
All in all, in my view of things, control cable loss accounted for a decent amount of air kills, yet it wasn't so prevalent that the majority of air kills fell to it. I'm tempted to believe that engine damage and pilot hits accounted for more air kills than control cable outages on their own, especially because an aircraft could often still somewhat function if only one or two cables had been cut.
I think Flying Circus' modeling of this (after the tweak announced on September 11, 2021) is spot-on. Control cables being severed in combat is a new and realistic addition that Rise of Flight never featured, which is another reason why I believe Flying Circus is the future of WW1 flight sims. The way Flying Circus handles this aspect of combat damage feels "right" compared to the historical data. It is a thrill in multiplayer to see an enemy aircraft spiral down out of control due to critical control cable damage! And now, thanks to the developers tweaking the frequency, it happens only after an aircraft has taken enough punishment to justify control cables being totally severed, and also often still gives the pilot a chance to get his bird down semi-safely... depending on which combination of control cables are severed, that is.
Wing loss explored
In looking at the data, I was surprised at how few occurrences of wing loss (or "disintegration") there actually were overall. Only around 5% of all sources in my sample is all. But, could aircraft with wings shearing off also be included in the slough of "out of control" reports? While probable, I do not think there would be a large amount of these. Just as with aircraft set afire, I believe pilots would have been highly-motivated to report aircraft disintegrating in the air as it would add strength to their claim. In almost all cases of reports I reviewed, pilots added whatever details they could to add veracity to their claim. Therefore I believe that though some aircraft certainly lost their wings after they fell out of view, a solid majority of wing losses are represented in the statistics in this article.
This makes sense to me. Time and I again I encountered reports of aircraft hurtling earthward, spinning out of control, yet relatively few mentions of wing loss appear. Nonetheless, it bears mentioning that despite the apparently-low number of wing-shedding occurrences, the fact remains that such things did still happen occasionally and were feared by all airmen:
"I was standing on the tarmac, watching the last of machines down, when the scream of a machine was heard. It was our youngster, to whom the repression of an hour's sober formation had been too much. He was diving, engine on, at the ground. He pulled out at about ten feet and zoomed up to five hundred or so on the momentum; but his pull into the zoom was rough and sudden, and his turn at the top was yanked, uneven.
'Gosh!' said one of the old hands, at my side, 'that's the way to pull your wings off.'
By now the machine had turned and was diving vertically, crazily at the ground. Again he yanked out the machine with a terrible jerk, about thirty feet up. It seemed to stagger. Then there was a tear, a wrench, and one pair of wings folded back. ...The machine fell headlong, struck the ground with a terrible crunch, and burst into flames." (Lewis 173)
In most cases, wing loss seemed to be linked to either extremely hamfisted maneuvering (like described above) or heavy fire snapping the struts holding the two sets of wings together as described below:
"...the observer [of a DH.4] fired about ninety rounds and the struts [of an attacking Albatros] were seen to be shot away on one side and the main [wings] came together. The machine broke up and fell out of control." (RFC War Diary entry, quoted in Kilduff 101)
But what if the spars inside one of the wings were shot; wouldn't that weaken the wing structure as well? Well, yes...and no. If a main spar inside one of the wings was hit repeatedly and with sufficient force, it definitely could be weakened to the point of collapse if a pilot pulled a moderate maneuver. However, the chance of that happening seems very rare given the data. To me, this makes a lot of sense, as bullets passing the the wing were probably much more likely to merely pass through the canvas or possibly merely hit one of the smaller supporting spars, as in this quotation here:
"...there was a terrific racket of machine gun firing behind me. I looked around and saw five or six Albatros scouts attacking me. ...my glove accidentally pressed the blip switch, causing the engine to stop... [my triplane started falling] into a spinning nose dive. ...I did not attempt to get out of the spin until I was getting fairly close to the ground. Then I centralized the controls, the spinning ceased and became a straight vertical dive, and I eased the machine out of it to a level position. ...I went straight down to ground level, hopping over any obstruction which happened to be in the way. ...I crossed the lines at this low altitude and got back to Mont St Eloi without further incident. ...On inspection, my machine was found to be riddled with bullet holes but no vital part had been hit." (Ed Crunall, quoted in Franks and Giblin, Kaiser's Aces 255-256)
As things stand currently in Flying Circus, Crunall likely would have died in the spinning dive to the ground as his wings departed him. My theory is that historically, even if the wing canvas was pierced or a minor spar was hit, the main spar and the struts would provide enough integrity to hold the aircraft together in all but the most strenuous of maneuvers. Yet even hits to the critical spars would not always mean an aircraft's wings would easily pop off, as evidenced in this combat report from No.46 squadron:
"One of the [Fokker Dr 1s] got onto Lt. McConnell's tail and fired a burst which shot both spars through and a centre [sic] section wire. In order to entice the E.A. down Lt. McConnell let his machine fall as though out of control swerving aside however each time the E.A. dived and fired." (No. 46 squadron combat report, May 9, 1918)
Lt. McConnell went on to escape his tormentor while a squadron mate engaged the Dr 1 in combat, eventually sending it down in a crash, control wires probably shot away. Again, as things stand in Flying Circus, Lt. McConnell's wings would have likely torn off, if not when he let his aircraft fall, then certainly the first time he swerved to avoid further enemy fire. Now, if several of his struts were broken (as in the Kilduff quote), McConnell would probably only have had moments left to live.
One final thing I've found interesting is that in several cases aircraft who were set on fire also suffered wing loss shortly afterward. Since fire would be a most effective way to weaken the structural integrity of a canvas-and-wood aircraft very quickly, it stands to reason that aircraft set afire would be much more prone to also disintegrating.
Conclusion
Based on my findings, I definitely think it is high time for the damage model of Flying Circus to see a review. Some very positive steps have already been made as of last month, when the control cable breakage issues were ironed out. Thanks to the developers' time and effort, control cable breakages are now not only in line with historical precedent, but they also form a new and immersive form of damage that previous flight simulators I've flown lacked.
As far as the wing-shedding issue goes, based on my findings, I would recommend around a 10-15% chance for wings to be shot off. (This is higher than a barefaced interpretation of the data, which brings us to 5%. I've buffed the recommended percentage due to the fact that there were a good deal of "out of control, fate unsure" and "destroyed, cause not stated" entries which probably included some wing offs that went undocumented. There is also the probability of overclaiming with some of the "out of control" reports.) Or maybe the best bet would be to buff the wing spar strength in most aircraft. However, I am not a software engineer or a coder, so take these suggestions for what they're worth. Ultimately, however it gets done, I believe the simulator would greatly benefit from making the damage model more closely match the history.
I would also recommend that the likelihood of setting an aircraft on fire should be increased, especially in cases where the fuel tank or engine has been hit multiple times. Ideally, the amount of air kills in Flying Circus that go down in flames would be around the 15-16% marker seen in the data. Finally, I would argue that it is worth slightly reducing the chance of a pilot becoming seriously injured or dying due to shock during bumpy landings or minor collisions.
When everything is said and done, Flying Circus does many things right and has vast potential for many more immersive improvements. Without a doubt it is the future of WW1 flight simulators. From years of past experience, sticking with the sim has paid off before, and I believe it will again. We virtual pilots aren't going anywhere. And we can't wait to see what improvements emerge in the years to come!
The visual damage model: A footnote
I would be remiss without mentioning one extremely strong point Flying Circus has regarding the damage modeling: the visuals. Flying Circus is the most visually-realistic and striking flight simulator I have ever flown, hands down. And I don't even fly in VR!
With the dynamic visual damage system introduced in March 12, 2021, Flying Circus is in a class all its own. Bullets actually leave bullet holes where they strike your aircraft. Long gashes and slashes can appear in your fabric where bullets have torn through. You can look over and see a wing wobbling, with one of your struts snapped (oh the horror!). All sorts of pieces of your aircraft can be shot off, including one or both of the wheels from your fixed landing gear. (Imagine having that for a nasty surprise when you attempt to land!) On some aircraft, cockpit details such as radiator caps can get shot away. (It would be nice if cockpit gauges and windscreens could be shattered or exhibit bullet-holes too. But what we have right now is already very good.)
Fuel tank hits emit a ghostly white vapor while coolant leaks or radiator overheats emit thick white smoke. Engine damage emits intermittent puffs of oily black smoke and fire announces its arrival with black smoke that increases in intensity as the flames spread. Fire looks horrifyingly-real and is still enough to stop me in my tracks even when seen from afar.
When aircraft impact the ground, they crash in a cloud of dust, often spreading myriads of aircraft parts across the ground. Depending on how the crash happens, they may sink into the dirt with a sickly crunch or careen down to burst into flames on impact. Or, if the crash is a low speed one, they may just plop onto the ground as the wings bend and twist under the impact.
The pilot wounding effects (along with the accompanying ringing ears sound effect) are very believable. When I get "wounded" as a pilot, I actually feel "hurt" and combat paranoia starts to set in — especially if I've been severely wounded.
I have one particularly vivid memory of getting attacked from behind and seeing the bullets impact all around my cockpit. They passed through the wood/canvas areas but left ricochet sparks when they impacted metal parts such as the engine and guns. Despite it being a terrifying moment for me, it was also a highly-immersive one.
On the whole, Flying Circus is extremely immersive and its visual damage model is the best I've ever seen in a flight sim. If the implementation of the damage model itself is updated to match the historical consensus, I know that Flying Circus will be unparalleled as a simulation of the WW1 combat aviation experience.
References:
“Be.2 (Family) History.” The Vintage Aviator, The Vintage Aviator Ltd., https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/be2/history-be2-series.
Bordeaux, Henry. Georges Guynemer, Knight of the Air. Yale University Press, 1918.
Compiled 94th Squadron Combat Reports. Fold3.com, https://www.fold3.com/.
Compiled No.46 squadron combat reports, late 1917-1918. The British National Archives, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/.
Compiled USAS POW reports. Fold3.com, https://www.fold3.com/.
Franks, Norman, and Hal Giblin. Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces: Böhome, Müller, von Tutsheck, and Wolff, The Complete Record of Their Victories and Victims. Grub Street, 2003.
Franks, Norman, and Hal Giblin. Under the Guns of the Red Baron: The Complete Record of Von Richthofen's Victories and Victims. Barnes & Noble Books, 1999.
Hamilton-Paterson, James. Marked for Death: The First War in the Air. Pegasus Books, Ltd., 2016.
Kilduff, Peter. Iron Man - Rudolf Berthold: Germany's Indomitable Fighter Ace of World War I. Grub Street. 2012.
Lewis, Cecil. Sagittarius Rising. Penguin Group, 1963.
Richthofen, Manfred von. The Red Battle Flyer. CruGuru, 2011.
Schäfer, Robin. “Master of a Burning Sky.” Iron Cross: German Military History 1914-45, Warner Group, no. 8, p. 18.
Taylor, Stewart K, and Adam Wait. “Double Jeopardy! - Part Two.” Over the Front, The League of WW1 Aviation Historians, https://www.overthefront.com/over-the-front-journal/sample-articles/double-jeopardy#Double_2.
Voigt, Immanuel. “Ghostwriting 'Der Rote Kampfflieger'.” Iron Cross: German Military History 1914-45, Warner Group, no. 8, p. 8.