# Best WW1 Fighter?



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

What do you think was the best WW1 fighter?

My opinion it is the Fokker D VII. It did not show up till end of the war (1918) but it was proven to be superior to anything else in the sky. It was the only aircraft the Germans used that was specifically mentioned in the armistance agreement to be turned over to the allies. 

The D VII could dive without any fear of structural failure. The D.VII was also noted for its ability to climb at high angles of attack, its remarkably docile stalling behavior, and its reluctance to spin. These handling characteristics contrasted with contemporary scouts such as the Camel and SPAD, which stalled sharply and spun vigorously.

However, the D.VII also had problems. Heat from the engine often ignited phosphorus ammunition until cooling vents were installed in the ammunition cans. Fuel tanks sometimes broke at the seams. The D.VII also shed fabric and experienced rib failures on the upper wing. Planes built by the Fokker plant at Schwerin were particularly noted for their lower standard of workmanship and materials. Nevertheless, the D.VII proved to be a remarkably successful design, leading to the familiar aphorism that it could turn a mediocre pilot into a good one, and a good pilot into an ace.

Info was taken from: Fokker D.VII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

775 D VIIs made it into service before wars end and it quickly racked up kills (565 alone just in August 1918). 

Post war it was used by the United States (142), Poland (50), Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2007)

The D.VII for sure but don't forget the D.VIII. Only 200 or so reached the front and they were superior to anything in the air. It's kind of a would of, should of, but they did serve...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

I almost wanted to vote for the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV. It is considered the best fighter to see service but as you said about the D. VIII it was too little too late with only 123 being built before wars end.


----------



## Thorlifter (May 8, 2007)

I believe the Snipe was the best, but as with the D. VIII and the Me-262, it entered service too late to make a huge impact. So I voted for the D. VII.


----------



## Haztoys (May 8, 2007)

Great to see more on WW1.. And WW1 planes ...Not alot of stuff on WW1 on the fourm... Thanks 

David


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

Well put your 2 cents in then.


----------



## Cyrano (May 8, 2007)




----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

Fokker D. VII for me as well... Spad XIII is a close second and Albatros D. Va third.


----------



## twoeagles (May 8, 2007)

Based on the number of enemy aircraft it's type dispatched, the Camel is undisputably number one. From an aeronautical engineering point of view,
I would opt for the D.VIII, but it has no appreciable record.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

I like the Camel but the reason I did not vote for her was because she was not a very stable aircraft. 

_The Camel owes its difficult handling characteristics to the grouping of the engine, pilot, guns, and fuel tank into first seven feet of the aircraft, coupled with the strong gyroscopic effect of the rotary engine.

The Camel soon gained an unfortunate reputation with student pilots. The Clerget engine was particularly sensitive to fuel mixture control, and incorrect settings often caused the engine to choke and cut out during takeoff. Many crashed due to mishandling on takeoff when a full fuel tank affected the center of gravity. In level flight, the Camel was markedly tail-heavy..... The pilot was therefore required to apply constant forward pressure on the control stick to maintain a level attitude at low altitude. However the machine could also be rigged in such a way that at higher altitudes it could be flown "hands off." A stall immediately resulted in a spin and the Camel was particularly noted for its vicious spinning characteristics.
_


The Camel was however very agile.


----------



## twoeagles (May 8, 2007)

Then, as today, instability equals agility. Now that aspect is controlled
and enhanced by computers. In WW1 it was up to the pilot to make best
use of those "deficiencies", and no doubt the Camel hurt a lot of novice
airmen. However, it is responsible for downing more aircraft than any other,
and by a good margin. (Thankfully, WW1 was fought from acres and acres
of turf, and not tarmac runways!!!)


----------



## timshatz (May 8, 2007)

Given the progression of the designs through the war, the best aircraft is most likely going to be the last one to be introduced before the war ends. Simply because it was the most advanced (or at least amongst the most advanced). 

A better question would be "Which aircraft had the greatest affect on WW1?"

The Fokker E3? Albatross D3? Gotha? Camel? Be2? Keep in mind the Air War in WW1 was very much subserviant to the ground war. Granted, the D3 shot down a couple of hundred British observation and spotting aircraft, but even 1 of the Spotting Aircraft could kill more German Soliders in one shoot then all the Be2 crewmen killed over the span of the war. Hence, which was more effective to the war?

Probably the Be2 or the Re8. Both killed thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of German troops.


----------



## trackend (May 8, 2007)

I've gone for the SE5a I know it was unpopular with some pilots in its initial SE5 configuration but it was noted by many as an easy plane to fly which with the very limited training available was a bonus this allowed pilots to concentrate on attacking the enemy rather than just keeping the plane on a even keel also having an inline engine the plane did not suffer from the torque troubles associated with some of the rotarys. With 200hp (when upgraded from the original SE5) and a top speed around 138mph she was no slouch and was also note for her high altitude capabilitys (17000-19000ft approx ceiling)
Im not saying that many of the other aircraft where not nimbler in a dog fight but IMO the speed available was a big advantage. 
I believe Albert Ball (as mentioned in One of Adlers threads) although not initially a lover of the SE5 accounted for 17 of his 44 kills in one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## timshatz (May 8, 2007)

Whoops, just re-read the thread title. Said we were looking for a fighter, not a mass killer. Ok, back in the game here. 

Go with the D7 here. It was the only aircraft specifically mentioned in the Versailles Treaty that had to be turned over to the Allies. That, in and of itself, is a testment to how much respect the Allies had for it. Here is the section:

"Conditions of an Armistice with Germany 

IV. Surrender in good condition by the German Armies of the following war material:

5,000 guns (2,500 heavy, 2,500 field). 
25,000 machine guns. 
3,000 trench mortars. 
1,700 fighting and bombing aeroplanes-in the first place, all D7's and all night-bombing aeroplanes."

Probably the only fighter that saw heavy service in WW1 and the last ones were built in 1929 (shades of the Corsair here). I think the Swiss were flying them as late as 1933 or so. 

Read about a guy who flew one once, in Smithsonian Magazine back in the 80s. Pilots from the First World War said it was the easier than others to fly. But according to this guy, it wasn't easy to fly compared to modern birds. Said after an hour flight he got down beat up, tired and sweaty. 

My vote goes for the D7. Not because I like it (think the Se5A was a better bird) but because it really was the best of the long service active fighters from WW1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2007)

I vote for the DVII also. Seems like I read that some of the early WW1 a/c in effect had no throttle but you decreased power but cutting the ignition off and on. Also the early rotary engines were lubricated with castor oil and the blowback from the engine into the pilots face caused a perpetual case of the GIs. There is a replica of a Camel in the Cavanaugh Air Museum in Addison ,Texas and it is really diminutive. Also an example of of the rotary engine. Can you imagine those 7 or 9 cylinders whirling around with the prop attached.


----------



## pbfoot (May 8, 2007)

In the rotary engines you control power by cutting the ignition . I'll go for the Bristol fighter even if was a 2 seater it had a long and distinguished military career


----------



## Haztoys (May 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well put your 2 cents in then.



I wish I knew anuff about WW1 planes to have 2 cents to add...LOL..

I'm 42 and been a ww2 aircraft buff all my life..And these days been doing some digging around on ww1 aircraft...And tank warfare...

I used to "think" I knew about ww2 aircraft...Then I found this forum ..And found out how much I did not know.. Some (most) of you guys really know your stuff... And if you come in here with off info ..You guys will sink there ship..LOL... And you should.. History is jacked up bad anuff..You guys ran me off some time back.. You guys can be real hard on nOObys at times ...  ....

I do really injoy coming here everyday and learning.. Being an American.. All we hear is one side ..Its really neat to hear about ww2 from people from all over the world ...And there take on what went down... I'm seeing that America has a bigger bull sh#%t info machine.. Then I knew... I wonder how "off" the info on the Iraq War is? ... And what will come out fifty years from now..?

On some car fourms ..I'm the man with all the info 8) ... But here I'm your student... I can ask alot of question...LOL... And have alot of questions to ask ..

But I must admit defeat in this game ... I do not have the info to even be on the field ... Please do not think this is a put down to you guys and the forum... Hats off to you guys...You sure know your stuff...

I could be the guy on the fourm that ask all the dumb questions ..LOL...I'd be the master of that..

Sorry to hijack this ... Please go back to WW1 aircraft .. And I'll get back to learning..

Have a good day

David

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2007)

David, your welcome here any time - if you go back in the threads and see the noodbs we harass you'll find they usually don't know what they are talking about and come in here with an attitude. All of us are always learning, its another thing to humble yourself and ask a question or say "I don't know."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> I wish I knew anuff about WW1 planes to have 2 cents to add...LOL..
> 
> I'm 42 and been a ww2 aircraft buff all my life..And these days been doing some digging around on ww1 aircraft...And tank warfare...
> 
> ...



Dave thats why I started this thread, because I dont know a lot about WW1 aircraft and this way I can learn more.

Sure I know the names of most of them but what made each one great or bad I dont know. 

Feel free to chime in at anytime, ask questions and learn. That is what this forum is here for.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2007)

Gotta go with the Fokker D. VII as well, for all the same reasons....


----------



## comiso90 (May 9, 2007)

The D.VII was the only weapon specifically mentioned by name in the armistice agreements at the end of the war (Surrender in good condition by the German Armies of [...] all aircraft of the D7 type [...]).


----------



## renrich (May 9, 2007)

Haztoy, this is a great site and I too have learned much since joining it. There are some very well informed people on this site and, I think, some fine gentlemen also.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2007)

Well, I may be informed, but dont u ever assume to call me a gentleman.... Thats a banning offense...


----------



## trackend (May 10, 2007)

I'll go along with that Les

_Be carefull what what you say to him David (Renrich) I only said good morning once and he opened his can of whoopass and I got a 5 week ban. 
In the end I had to PM him and e-mail an image of a $10 bill bribe but as he works cheap he fax back 50cents change.
all the best Lee 
PS dont tell Les I told you _


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)




----------



## renrich (May 10, 2007)

Les, naturally I was not including you in the gentleman category. What in the world is a Long Island native doing in Miss. anyway.


----------



## Cyrano (May 10, 2007)




----------



## renrich (May 12, 2007)

I agree Cyrano, there were more Corsairs destroyed operationally than by enemy fire and that probably was true of the Camel also. I guess the big difference as far as difficulty in handling the a/c was that the Corsair in the air was a dream to fly, just difficult for a rookie to land and had to be trimed correctly on takeoff whereas the Camel was, I understand, tricky in all flight regimes.


----------



## Marcel (May 12, 2007)

Voted Fokker D.VII. 
Nice myth about Anthony Fokker:
The Fokker D.VII was not a very stable design, the first vprototypes had a lot of problems with directionally instability. Fokker used that to impress the german army at the Adlershof competition. He told the test pilot that he should notice how responsive the D.VII was and how manouverable (because of the instability). Fokker did impress the germans with this and maneuverability became one of the D.VII best properties.


----------



## davparlr (May 12, 2007)

The DVII has gotten all the publicity, however, I am sure the Spad and SE5a were worthy opponents, both being faster and with a higher ceiling. Also, I don't think too much about the Allies naming the DVII in the armistice. They were the only one who go to pick. I am sure they thought it was the best the Germans had.

I don't know too much about WWI aircraft, so I would have to vote for the DVII just because of its fame (kinda like the P-51).


----------



## Gnomey (May 12, 2007)

Fokker D.VII for me too (all the reasons already stated). Camel would probably be second for me.


----------



## Haztoys (May 13, 2007)

If you can get the movie "The Red Baron".."The compelling story of the most legendery personality in the annals of aviation"...Wow really good old WW1 footage...No date on when it was made ..But they speak to alot of WW1 pilot and at the end ..They have some WW1 vets at a German Air base .. And they are checking out out "new modern" planes ...F4 Fantom and F104's..So it had to be made in the 60's... Not sure how the info is ..They have footage of his Funeral ..Footage of dog fights..One of the better doc movies I've come across ..Hard to find any doc moves on ww1 ..

Got it at a yard sale late week ..With VCR tapes of Patton ..Battle of the Bulge..Victory at sea three of these tapes..And books ..World War 11 combat aircraft..The great book of WW11 airplanes..These two books are huge must way ten pound apeace ...WW1 in photograph..and [email protected] weapons of ww11..For $5.00 ..Graet score 

If you can get the Red Baron movie I would ..


----------



## Christopher Tarana (May 8, 2022)

I like the RAF Camel for it's all around approach!

Christopher Tarana


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2022)

Christopher Tarana said:


> I like the RAF Camel for it's all around approach!
> 
> Christopher Tarana


Hi Christopher - 

Just so you know, this thread hasn't been active in 15 years.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 8, 2022)

Someone just needs to mention the P-39…that’ll bring the thread right back to life (in a zombie-like way).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 8, 2022)

I feel a disturbance in The Force.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 9, 2022)

I'm glad this thread got resurrected, I've always loved av history from WWI. I haven't voted, but in my little opinion it's a toss-up between the D.VII and the SE5a. The former was a little gentler to fly, and I think a better all-round craft, but the SE was faster, could climb and dive very well, and while not as maneuverable, if flown right I think it could hang (yo-yos, diving attacks, essentially energy maintenance). Its dihedral made it very stable so in a dogfight it's at a small disadvantage vs D.VII? Both were fairly rugged (for the era).

I'd give the D.VII the edge because its gun layout was better for point-and-shoot, and you didn't have to worry about reloading a Lewis on the upper wing. You give up a little speed for a bit more maneuver (important when swirling dogfights were still the main thang). It was still sturdy, capable of high-alt flight (for the era), and with good dive and climb as well.

I like the comment long-past in this thread about the Brisfit, too. For a two-seater, it was a positively dangerous opponent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 9, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'm glad this thread got resurrected, I've always loved av history from WWI. I haven't voted, but in my little opinion it's a toss-up between the D.VII and the SE5a. The former was a little gentler to fly, and I think a better all-round craft, but the SE was faster, could climb and dive very well, and while not as maneuverable, if flown right I think it could hang (yo-yos, diving attacks, essentially energy maintenance). Its dihedral made it very stable so in a dogfight it's at a small disadvantage vs D.VII? Both were fairly rugged (for the era).
> 
> I'd give the D.VII the edge because its gun layout was better for point-and-shoot, and you didn't have to worry about reloading a Lewis on the upper wing. You give up a little speed for a bit more maneuver (important when swirling dogfights were still the main thang). It was still sturdy, capable of high-alt flight (for the era), and with good dive and climb as well.
> 
> I like the comment long-past in this thread about the Brisfit, too. For a two-seater, it was a positively dangerous opponent.



My heart wanted to vote for the Brisfit since I have a personal connection to that type. However, my head tells me it was not the best fighter. It was certainly dangerous and gave at least as good as it got...but it wasn't in the same class as the Fokker D.VII, SE5a or Sopwith Snipe. All that said, the Brisfit was a remarkable achievement given that it was supposed to replace the BE2 series aircraft. As arguably the first multi-role aircraft, it certainly was one of the outstanding airframes of the Great War.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 9, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> My heart wanted to vote for the Brisfit since I have a personal connection to that type. However, my head tells me it was not the best fighter. It was certainly dangerous and gave at least as good as it got...but it wasn't in the same class as the Fokker D.VII, SE5a or Sopwith Snipe. All that said, the Brisfit was a remarkable achievement given that it was supposed to replace the BE2 series aircraft. As arguably the first multi-role aircraft, it certainly was one of the outstanding airframes of the Great War.



Right, it wasn't top-tier as a fighter, nor was it meant to be. It was much better than the planes it replaced.


----------



## MikeMeech (May 10, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> My heart wanted to vote for the Brisfit since I have a personal connection to that type. However, my head tells me it was not the best fighter. It was certainly dangerous and gave at least as good as it got...but it wasn't in the same class as the Fokker D.VII, SE5a or Sopwith Snipe. All that said, the Brisfit was a remarkable achievement given that it was supposed to replace the BE2 series aircraft. As arguably the first multi-role aircraft, it certainly was one of the outstanding airframes of the Great War.


Hi
In service the Bristol F2b Fighter replaced the RAF Fe 2b/d (many of these were later used as night bombers) as a fighter reconnaissance aircraft (as in Nos 20 and 22 Sqns) during 1917. The aircraft types that replaced (during 1917) the RAF BE 2 series in the Corps squadrons were the RAF RE 8 and AW FK 8. From the beginning of 1918 the Bristol Fighter was being used as a long-range artillery spotter for heavy artillery using two-way wireless telegraphy (eventually equipping L, M, N, O and P Flts.) and near the end of the war started (powered by the Arab engine) to re-equip the RE 8 and FK 8 Corps squadrons.
It is interesting to note the the SE 5a, which entered service from mid 1917, was still very competitive with the 1918 introduced fighters such as the Fokker D VII and Sopwith Snipe.

Mike

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2022)

Tough call between the D VII, Snipe and SE.5a. I could introduce the Martinsyde Buzzard, which had better performance than all of them, but only entered service as the war ended.



MikeMeech said:


> It is interesting to note the the SE 5a, which entered service from mid 1917, was still very competitive with the 1918 introduced fighters such as the Fokker D VII and Sopwith Snipe.



Designed by Harry Folland, who also was responsible for the Grebe and Gamecock post-war RAF fighters.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 10, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I like the Camel but the reason I did not vote for her was because she was not a very stable aircraft.


For that reason I always thought it an odd choice for the RNAS’ carrier fighter. Landing must have been scary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 11, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> For that reason I always thought it an odd choice for the RNAS’ carrier fighter. Landing must have been scary.



You aren't going to do a wave-off in a Camel, unless you like upside-down dives into the drink.

I don't see any logic in using rotary-engined planes on a carrier anyway, because with no smooth throttle control, but simply an on/off switch, the fine throttling needed to match speeds would seem very hard to achieve.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> You aren't going to do a wave-off in a Camel, unless you like upside-down dives into the drink.
> 
> *I don't see any logic in using rotary-engined planes on a carrier anyway, because with no smooth throttle control, but simply an on/off switch, the fine throttling needed to match speeds would seem very hard to achieve.*


At the time that was the technology of the day although there were some in line aircraft (SE-5/ Bristol Fighter) available. Remember, all this was in it's infancy and there was still a lot to learn.

Sought of where the Russians are today with their carriers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> You aren't going to do a wave-off in a Camel, unless you like upside-down dives into the drink.
> 
> I don't see any logic in using rotary-engined planes on a carrier anyway, because with no smooth throttle control, but simply an on/off switch, the fine throttling needed to match speeds would seem very hard to achieve.


In most of the aircraft of the day, the throttle was either a knob or a lever attached to a cable, which led to the carb.

They had infinite throttle adjustment.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 11, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> In most of the aircraft of the day, the throttle was either a knob or a lever attached to a cable, which led to the carb.
> 
> They had infinite throttle adjustment.



You're right, I think, in hindsight. The Clerget used by the Camel did have a full-use throttle. Perhaps I was thinking of the Dr.I's rotary instead?



FLYBOYJ said:


> At the time that was the technology of the day although there were some in line aircraft (SE-5/ Bristol Fighter) available. Remember, all this was in it's infancy and there was still a lot to learn.
> 
> Sought of where the Russians are today with their carriers



Right. In-lines were already a thing, I seem to remember the SE5-A also had a V8, the D.VII had an inline-six engine. Those too had throttles that could adjust fuel-feed between on and off.

Was it just German rotary engines that had the blip-switch?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> You're right, I think, in hindsight. The Clerget used by the Camel did have a full-use throttle. Perhaps I was thinking of the Dr.I's rotary instead?




Here are a few threads from The Aerodrome Forum that might help (as always, it's not an easy topic to answer because there was no standardization, and so each engine operated slightly differently):






What Is a "Blip" Switch?


What Is a



www.theaerodrome.com










Rotary Engine throttle?


Rotary Engine throttle? Aircraft



www.theaerodrome.com










Throttle down


Throttle down Aircraft



www.theaerodrome.com









Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right. In-lines were already a thing, I seem to remember the SE5-A also had a V8, the D.VII had an inline-six engine. Those too had throttles that could adjust fuel-feed between on and off.



Plenty of other aircraft used in-line or V engines during WW1 - DH4, DH9, Bristol Fighter, Handley Page O/400, BE2, RE8, DH6, and many aircraft built by Albatros, Halberstadt, Hansa-Brandenburg, Aviatik, AEG, Pfalz, Loehner, etc, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 11, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Plenty of other aircraft used in-line engines during WW1 - DH4, DH9, Bristol Fighter, Handley Page O/400, BE2, RE8, DH6, and many aircraft built by Albatros, Halberstadt, Hansa-Brandenburg, Aviatik, AEG, Pfalz, Loehner, etc, etc.



Indeed, I was just naming the two which have seen much mention in this thread. If I remember correctly, rotary engines were a later design than inline and Vs, adopted in aviation for their light weight, abandoned later due to limited power-scaling options.

Thanks for the links, I may sign up there.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 11, 2022)

Those planes were really slow. I wouldn't doubt some carriers had to back up just so the planes could catch them!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> For that reason I always thought it an odd choice for the RNAS’ carrier fighter. Landing must have been scary.



Just to add to this, the idea behind the Ship's Camel was not to land back on the deck, but to ditch in the sea or fly to friendly territory, as what happened during the Tondern raid on July 1918 when seven Camels flew from the Furious and bombed the airship shed at Tondern, now Tonder, Denmark. The Camels either landed on shore or crashed into the sea. At that early time there was no such means to restrain an aeroplane landing on deck, so they had to ditch. This was considered normal since the cost of single-seat aeroplanes was not high at the time, so the loss was justified, according to the war office bean counters.

Landing on, although it had been done in practise by Dunning in 1917, was banned because of his death within the Furious' F Squadron, although Dunning's successor, the inimitable Frederick Rutland did do so with success aboard Furious after Dunning's death to prove he could do it. Experiments were done with Sopwith Pups and Beardmore WB.IIIs, which was a Pup modified by the Beardmore ship builders for ship operations aboard the carrier Argus during the final months of the war and subsequently as a means of determining how to restrain an aeroplane landing on a carrier, this is where the arrestor method was born. Admittedly, most of that era's aircraft could land in a short space, but restraining them was paramount to prevent accidents.


----------

