# Original SE5a Still Flying



## mauld (Apr 22, 2014)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keuWGZ5e_jM_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Apr 22, 2014)




----------



## Airframes (Apr 22, 2014)

Excellent !


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 22, 2014)

That truly is amazing!


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 24, 2014)

Great video! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## proton45 (Apr 24, 2014)

I always liked this aeroplane...even if their is something "odd" about its shape.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 25, 2014)

What a machine! Thanks for posting.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 25, 2014)

proton45 said:


> I always liked this aeroplane...even if their is something "odd" about its shape.



The 'odd' thing about it is it looked so modern, compared to many other aircraft of the period. 
Look again, and you'll see the beginnings of what came to be known as 'streamlining', with an overall shape, of the fuselage at least, that is recognisable as the same 'continuous flow', blended shapes which, admittedly with much further development, remained right through fighter design until the dawning of the 'jet age'


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 25, 2014)

Airframes said:


> The 'odd' thing about it is it looked so modern, compared to many other aircraft of the period.
> Look again, and you'll see the beginnings of what came to be known as 'streamlining', with an overall shape, of the fuselage at least, that is recognisable as the same 'continuous flow', blended shapes which, admittedly with much further development, remained right through fighter design until the dawning of the 'jet age'



I always thought it looked like a box in comparison to some of it's contemporaries , especially the Albatross D series of fighters.

But it was faster, than even the Albatross DV, on the same approximate power. 

What I wonder is why the Albatross is so slow with that beautifully streamlined fuselage, and radiator inline with the wing ?


----------



## rogerwilko (May 8, 2014)

I wonder why manufacturers were persisting with rotary engines with no carby control instead of these engines?


----------



## tyrodtom (May 8, 2014)

rogerwilko said:


> I wonder why manufacturers were persisting with rotary engines with no carby control instead of these engines?



Rotaries did have carb controls, but the intake path was so long, the intake charge had to go from the carb at the rear of the engine, thru the crankcase, then thru the intake pipe.
Any change you made in the throttle setting took time to take effect, plus you had to change the mixture at the same time. They throttled them in flight, but it was a cumbersome affair. Plus there was a difference between 2 valve and 1 valve rotaries on the effectiveness of throttle control.

So on landing they just cut the ignition on and off.

The rotaries had a power to ratio much better than the liquid cooled engines. They were willing to put up with their behavior for that lightweight power.


----------

