# Whats your favorite aircraft from WWI??



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 11, 2005)

For me I have always liked the Spads. Recently Ive really started to like the Spad XII. Its sort of an oddity. It has a single .303 Vickers machine gun firing through the propeller plus a single 37mm Puteaux cannon firing through the propeller shaft. The Puteaux was a tank cannon shortened and adapted to the Spad. It was a single shot gun that had to be hand loaded. Since the breach of the cannon was sitting between the pilots legs its obvious that a regular "stick" control couldnt be used. So the Spad XII used Deperdussin controls. These were similar in layout to the controls used on the P-38 or most bombers where a wheel controls the ailerons and moving the yoke controls the elevator. It had a Hispano-Suiza 8Cb, liquid cooled V8 engine producing 220 hp driving the propeller through a reduction gear. This had an advantage to other designs using rotary engines in that the pilot didn't have to deal with the large gyroscopic forces resulting from spinning the entire engine.

Other favorites of mine however are the Sopwith Camel and Pup for their rotaries! The rotary is unique and almost unknown and unheard of these days. Noone ever imagines that you could solidly attach the propeller to the engine and then spin the engine and prop together! This allowed for some wild handling and quick turns... in one direction however. The rotaries of the time had a high power to weight ratio plus were very intriguing (at least to me) with their poppet valves located in the piston, no throttle to speak of (using a blip switch) plus all the castor oil!! Pretty cool stuff!!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2005)

I like the Sopwith camel - a bitch to fly but once mastered a deadly machine.


----------



## JCS (Jan 11, 2005)

My favprites are the Fokker Dr.1, Fokker DV, Fokker DVII, Gotha GIV and Albatros DVa


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2005)

My favourite is -without doubt- the sopwith triplane. Manouverable like the camel but much more forgiving. The zeppelin/Dornier Rs IV would be fine , too (but in another way...)


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 22, 2005)

I like the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker Triplane both good aircraft with different specialities but deadly in the hands of a good pilot.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 25, 2005)

Hi,

My favourites are the Fokker D.VII and the Fokker Dr.I .

Douglas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

even though it didn't see any service i don't think, i'm saying Handly Page 0/400..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

I don't think it did but the Handley-Page 0/100 was good aswell


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2005)

Fokker DVII bitte ! how about a few DVIII's ........... Flying Razor


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2005)

Gotta go with the Pup!

"We saw at once that the enemy airplane was superior to ours." Manfred von Richthofen, after encountering the Sopwith Pup in combat


----------



## GT (May 12, 2005)

Update.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (May 12, 2005)

Those are some great pictures, GT!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2005)

Very Cool! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Yeah nice pics! 8) Gotta love the DR.1


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 12, 2005)

Cool pics.


----------



## BountyHunter15 (May 12, 2005)

The P-51 is one of the best fighters of the war.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 12, 2005)

Wrong war.


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2005)

First class pictures. 
The HP 0400 did see action in the war and must be the best heavy bomber. 
Normal Bomber would be the DH4 fastest thing in the air
Fighter Sopwith Snipe


----------



## GT (May 13, 2005)

Update.


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Nice!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Very Cool 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (May 24, 2005)

Fokker Dr1 was my favourite WWI plane on German Side. Sopwith Camel on the Allied Side.


----------



## GT (May 24, 2005)

Update.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

Nice shots GT - Does anyone remember the movie "The Great Waldo Pepper?" At the end of the movie a Camel duels with a DR1, Black with yellow checkers and the name "Lola" on the side. Would love to see a shot of that!


----------



## evangilder (May 24, 2005)

I remember that movie. It's been years since I have seen it though.


----------



## trackend (May 24, 2005)

Ive seen a replica Spad flying at Stapleford Airdrome in Essex and I was really suprised at just how nimble these old beasts are they really could be thrown around.


----------



## jrk (Jul 26, 2005)

fav fighters se5 se5a and sopwith camal.

for the germans fokker dvii deadly killing machine.


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2005)

Bristol Type 20. In 1916 it went 130 mph with a synchronised gun and would have wiped the floor with anything in the air at the time.
The reason the RAF barely used it, because it was a monoplane. It was years ahead of its time and very reliable. RAF incompetence at its worst.

As for the Germans it has to be the Fokker D7. As the only plane mentioned in the Peace Treaty it had to be something special.


----------



## vanir (Aug 12, 2005)

Spad XIII

138mph. 235hp. Twin Vickers.

There's better aircraft, but I just wouldn't be able to help myself. It's the grunter, at the end of the day you've always got that. I'd have popped a couple extra vickers on mine for good measure.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 12, 2005)

Did the Russians have any form of Air force in WW1?


----------



## Smokey (Aug 12, 2005)

Heres a site about the Imperial Russian air force in WW1

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/new_site/frames/WW1 russian aircraft_frame2.htm

Fave WW1 aircraft:






Fokker DVII





Siemens Shuckert DIII/IV
the flying beer barrel




http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Hustad/SSW/
http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Historisch/historisch.html





Siemens Shuckert DIII
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/collection/airplanes/Siemens-Schuckert.htm



> The Siemens was best known for its phenomenal rate of climb. During the First Fighter Competition of January 1918 (which the German Military held to select the most promising fighter aircraft for its air force), the Siemens DIII outmaneuvered a Fokker DVII prototype flown by Manfred von Richthofen. In June of 1918 at the Second Fighter Competition, the Siemens outmaneuvered a Fokker DVIII prototype flown by Anthony Fokker himself.





> Considered by many to be the best fighter to see action during the war, it reached service too late and was produced in too few numbers to have any effect on the war effort.
> Although the short landing gear and limited prop clearance led to tricky landing, the plane was otherwise easy to fly. It had a very short take-off run, and at heights above 4,000 m (13,l20 ft) was faster and more manoeuvrable than the Fokker D.VII, at that point considered by all to be the best aircraft flying. Its most notable feature was its phenomenal rate of climb and extremely high service ceiling - it could reach 6,000 m (19,685 ft) in less than 14 1/2 minutes. In 36 minutes it could reach 8,100m, about 1,200 higher than the Fokker's maximum altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JCS (Aug 12, 2005)

Heres my top 5 favorites (not in any order):

1) Fokker D.VIII
2) Fokker Dr.I
3) Albatros D.V
4) Gotha G.IV
5) Caproni Ca.4/Ca.42


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 12, 2005)

Cool! Thanks, Smokey.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2005)

Even though too late for WW1, I always liked the Martin MB-1.


----------



## dinos7 (Aug 28, 2005)

definately the DR1


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 29, 2005)

dinos7 said:


> definately the DR1



The Fokker Dr.1 was influenced by the Sopwith Triplane which was superior to the German fighters of the time (early 1917). There was not much difference in their performance either.


----------



## GT (Oct 1, 2005)

Cancelled.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 1, 2005)

Original but anyway Sopwith Camel.




From http://www.theaerodrome.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 1, 2005)

SE5a


----------



## Glider (Oct 1, 2005)

This just a test. I have some old photos of WW1 aircraft but they need some work.
Thanks for your patience


----------



## Glider (Oct 1, 2005)

Here are some other WW1 Fighters. By the way the previous SE5a was a stunning shot.
Of these aircraft, the SE5a, Pup, Bristol and Avro 504 are original planes built between 1916 and 1918.
The Triplane is a little less clear cut. It was built in 1990 but to the original plans, materials and techniques and is powered by an original 1916 130hp Clerget engine. It has been awarded the status of a 'late production' aircraft but I will let you decide amongst yourselves as to how to view it.


----------



## sablatnic (Sep 13, 2009)

I am for the Bristol Scout. Good plane at the start of the war, but too few were made to matter.


----------



## imalko (Sep 13, 2009)

For me its the German Albatros D II, which I prefer over later marks (D III and D V) because these had serious problems with wings. I always thought about Albatros fighters as a some sort of WW1 version of Messerchmitt Bf 109.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 13, 2009)

I have to go with the Zeppelin Staaken R VI. She's just too dam beautiful to me.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/zeppelin_r-6.php


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2009)

lol...this thread's been idle for 4 years...

While I'm here, I'll say my fav is the Fokker D.VII


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 14, 2009)

That's my favorite fighter. 

Nice siggy! Say, when the shirts get made, are people going to stop us and ask,"Hey, you know Dave????"


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> That's my favorite fighter.
> 
> Nice siggy! Say, when the shirts get made, are people going to stop us and ask,"Hey, you know Dave????"


It was interesting to see how the fortunes of the airwar over the trenches shifted back and forth as much as it did in such a short time. Contrary to popular belief, the DR1 wasn't as good as the D.VII, which was a real equalizer, and probably one of the best machines to come out of the war.

And if anyone asks you if you know Dave, check to see who's asking!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Sep 14, 2009)

The Fokker DR1.


Wheels


----------



## Pong (Sep 20, 2009)

Fokker D.VII.


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Sep 21, 2009)

Early war - Fokker Eindecker





Late war - SE5a


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 22, 2009)

Definately gotta agree with you Thunderbolt65... Its all about the SE.5






But I also am very partial to the Albatros D.V Looks like a shark!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Milos Sijacki (Sep 24, 2009)

Well my personal favorite ones are Fokker D. VII and Albatros D-3. I just love Albatros D-3, it was agile and armed with two Spandau machine guns.


----------



## VALENGO (Sep 27, 2009)

Albatros DV was the most beautiful thing in the air during WWI, second Fokker triplane.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 27, 2009)

VALENGO said:


> Albatros DV was the most beautiful thing in the air during WWI, second Fokker triplane.


I have to agree about the Albatros being a good looking aircraft, both the D.III and D.V


----------



## PilotGod (Sep 28, 2009)

I've got to go with the Gotha bomber, a remarkable aircraft in abilities for the time.


----------



## sergio_vitalio (Sep 30, 2009)

My favorite AVRO-504, very beautiful plane.



[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## The PIPE (Nov 29, 2009)

Dear Fellow WW I Av-Fans:

The PIPE here, a regular denizen of TheAerodrome.com, which is to WW I aviation what THIS forum is to the conflagration of a war "that former Austrian-born lance corporal in WW I"...among others...started almost a generation later.

I am a HUUUGE fan of WW I aviation, and for starters, to Sergio Vitalio, PLEASE check out the photos at Luftfahrt Fotostrecken auf Biplanes.de - Die Oldtimer Community in Deutschland ...I shot most of these photos in September 2002 for my German Email buddy Jens Klank (the Webmaster of Biplanes.de - Die Oldtimer Community in Deutschland) , *and if YOU thought you were an AVRO 504 fan, just ask Jens some time* how much HE loooves it...!!!

There are a WHOLE LOT of WW I aircraft, from BOTH sides (Allied and CENTRAL-NOT "Axis"-Powers) that I like a whole lot...for the Allies, there's the (in chronological order)...

R.A.F. (Royal Aircraft FACTORY!) B.E.2c and earlier
Bristol Scout C
Avro 504
R.A.F. F.E. 8 pusher fighter
Sopwith "Flying Zoo" (Camel, Pup, and ESPECIALLY the *Sopwith Dolphin*)
Bréguet XIV
R.A.F. S.E. 5a
Ansaldo SVA 5 (fastest single seater of them all [EITHER side!] in WW I)
SPAD XIII

And for the Central Powers, there's the (again in chronological order)...

D.F.W. B I "Fliegende Banane"
Fokker M.5K/MG Eindecker prototypes (five produced)
Junkers J 1 "Blechesel" pioneering all-metal aircraft (monoplane) of late 1915
Halberstadt D II
Albatros D Va
Fokker Dr I (of course!)
Fokker D VII
Siemens-Schuckert D IV
...and my ABSOLUTE favorite OF ALL, *the JUNKERS D I* !!!

The Bristol Scout series, for which I wrote the English language Wikipedia entry, dates to before Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo, precipitating WW I in the first place...I also wrote the Junkers J 1 "Blechesel" Wiki entry, and plan to write MANY more of these in the future...OR at least get more of my facts together and add to what's already there !

My FIRST RC Giant Scale WW I aircraft is intended to be the Bristol Scout C...as I've been UNemeployed for a bit over a year now from my CAD drafting career, who KNOWS when I'd be able to even start to bring any of my CAD-drawn WW I RC Giants "off the drafting screen" and onto a building board for the creation of a quarter-scale verison of them.

It's also MUCH EASIER for someone like me, who ONLY likes flying SLOW RC model aircraft (easier to "keep up" with them, and ENJOY the flight experience!) to build WW I RC scale model aircraft...anyone who's been to Old Rhinebeck in the past, and seen how SHORT a takeoff run those "flying tall ships" of aircraft have, AND how slowly they fly, would appreciate seeing RC Giant Scale (usually 1/4th size, and increasingly even larger scale ratios) WW I model aircraft doing their thing at a local RC field near you.

I'm just making my statements based on my RC scale aeromodeling interests, and what I'd like to build and fly for WW I aircraft "in miniature" by radio control, using four stroke engines.

Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE!


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2009)

Fokker D VII


----------



## piet (Nov 30, 2009)

Halberstadt CL-II


----------



## timshatz (Nov 30, 2009)

Se5A. Stable, fast, easy to fly and fairly sturdy. Think the Lewis gun on the upper wing was a monument to bad design but I guess it's better than nothing (but not better than another Vickers in the fuselage). Probably the first of the boom and zoom fighters before boom and zoom had even been though of.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2009)

A tie between Fokker D.VII and Spad XIII.


----------



## Red Baron (Mar 10, 2010)

Fokker DR.1 with black cross on its wing scaryyyy. I love it


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 11, 2010)

Fokker DVII the best...


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 13, 2010)

Yeah...I like the Fokker D.VII too!


----------



## Timppa (Mar 16, 2010)

Junkers D.I , the first all-metal, cantilevered monoplane fighter to enter service.
It was very fast too, experiments in November 1918 with a BMW IIIa engine with 185 hp gained 240 km/h.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Rivet (Mar 16, 2010)

If I had to reduce the prodigious list of all of the machinery produced for aviation use during the Great War down to one pick what criteria would I use? Hmmmmmm.....Well these things were built to fight; on consideration of the issue I'd have to place the Sikorsky Ilya Mouromentz at the header. About half of the seventy three bombers of this type constructed were used at the front. Proven rugged and reliable only two were lost to enemy action between February 1914 and October 1917. The records of the first sixteen operational bombers state that during the above mentioned time period those aircraft, in the course of 422 sorties, dropped 2300 bombs and took 7000 aerial photographs and are credited with the destruction of thirty-seven hostile aircraft.
This aircraft spurred the Germans to develop the R-planes, which fostered many developments still in use today. Stressed metal skin being one outcome of the program.
The Bolsheviks used the aircraft post-war, the last flight of the Ilya Morumetz occuring in 1923.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sweb (Mar 24, 2010)

Spad XIII


----------



## zoomar (Mar 25, 2010)

Do Zeppelin airships count?

If not, I've always had a soft spot for Pfaltz products, especially the D.III and the D.XII. Sleek, look better than they were, always second (or 3rd) best in a squadron, always assigned to the new guy, but in capable hands pretty sweet fighters nonetheless.


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Junkers D.I , the first all-metal, cantilevered monoplane fighter to enter service.
> It was very fast too, experiments in November 1918 with a BMW IIIa engine with 185 hp gained 240 km/h.



Same...this plane was really modern for the WWI war...


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 6, 2010)

they all enthralled me as a youth. to me that was real flying. a guy down the street ( in 1960 ) had the frame of a Jenny sitting in his front yard...i tried to talk my dad into buying that and fixing it up but he wouldnt bite. later ( 66/67ish ) we went to a local airshow and they had 3 ww1 aircraft from the rhinebeck airdrome... a fokker biplane, a spad, and a sopwith ?? i was amazed how short of runway they needed to take off and land...and the spad ( and maybe all of them ) had to keep turning the mag switch off and on...my dad said because they did not have a throttle. maybe someone could confirm or correct that for me. they gave a pretty good preformance dogfighting at pretty low altitude. i do have his old 8mm films and i believe have those on them. i am in the process of getting all that converted onto dvd. if i run across that and its worth viewing i will post it.

Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" - The Cradle of Aviation Museum

Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome | America's Original Living Museum of Antique Airplanes! - Welcome!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## T Bolt (Apr 6, 2010)

Fokker D.VII


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2010)

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I have always liked the SE5A and Bristol Fighter. Although the RFC/RNAS/RAF were often eclipsed technologically and in terms of individual pilot skill, I believe they were among the first to grasp the significance of deep air support to the ground battle, and the use of heavy bombers as a strategic weapon as opposed to a pure terror weapon. They also showed the plodding determination to stay airborne and keep fighting in the face of horrendous casualties which has since proved vital to the success of aerial warfare.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smoke (Jun 29, 2010)

My favorite WWI aircraft is the Sopwith Triplane, no question!

Someday, I'd like to build one...

I'm also quite partial to Airships, though I don't think I'd want be aboard if the enemy is using incendiary rounds...


----------



## Milosh (Jun 29, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> they all enthralled me as a youth. to me that was real flying. a guy down the street ( in 1960 ) had the frame of a Jenny sitting in his front yard...i tried to talk my dad into buying that and fixing it up but he wouldnt bite. later ( 66/67ish ) we went to a local airshow and they had 3 ww1 aircraft from the rhinebeck airdrome... a fokker biplane, a spad, and a sopwith ?? i was amazed how short of runway they needed to take off and land...and the spad ( and maybe all of them ) had to keep turning the mag switch off and on...my dad said because they did not have a throttle. maybe someone could confirm or correct that for me. they gave a pretty good preformance dogfighting at pretty low altitude. i do have his old 8mm films and i believe have those on them. i am in the process of getting all that converted onto dvd. if i run across that and its worth viewing i will post it.
> 
> Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" - The Cradle of Aviation Museum
> 
> Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome | America's Original Living Museum of Antique Airplanes! - Welcome!



It depended on what engine. The rotaries required an ignition cut out switch (OFF, 1/4 and 1/2 iirc) but the inline engines had regular throttles.

As far back as I can remember, the SE5a. A little later found the Sopwith Triplane which was the inspiration for Fokker Dr.1.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 5, 2010)

In no particular order....

Fokker DVII
Fokker DrI
SE5a
Albatros DIII
Albatros DV
Sopwith Camel
Nieuport 17
Spad 13

Most likely forgot one or two....


----------



## skeeter (Aug 17, 2010)

I like the SE.5a. One of the fastest fighters of the era at approximately 138 mph. James McCudden had much success in it before he died in a flying accident during the war. It had sufficient dogfighting ability and could reasonably elect to stay in the fight or break it off and wait for a more advantageous circumstance. I always have liked the idea of being able to advance the throttle and out distance an adversary, or to close on them.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 17, 2010)

The Zeppilin Staaken R.VI
Fokker D.VII
Handley Page O/400


----------



## looney (Apr 19, 2011)

For me it's:
1st Eindecker 
2nd Spad XIII
3rd Nieuport 11

Staaken and the other heavies are cool to. But I just love the eindecker, THOSE planes where at the start of fighter power. Immelman, Boelcke heck we still use their tactics today.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 19, 2011)

Love the DVII


----------



## woljags (Apr 19, 2011)

its got to be the se5a for me


----------



## johnbr (Apr 20, 2011)

Found this site.here is my favorite ww1 aircaft.
Welcome to The Aerodrome - Aces and Aircraft of World War I

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 20, 2011)

This are the ones I like by their nationalities:

Great Britain - S.E.5a
France - Spad XIII
Germany - Albatros DIII

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 16, 2011)

The Bristol Fighter fast, manouverable for a two seater, sleek and deadly


----------



## davebender (Sep 16, 2011)

Welcome to Landships! - A site for WW1 Military Hardware WW1 Military Modelling
I suspect German and French artillery spotting balloons contributed more towards the overall war effort then all heavier than air aircraft put together. 




Artillery typically caused 55 to 75% of WWI battle casualties. Artillery forward observers located in captive balloons are a large part of the reason why field artillery was king of the WWI battlefield.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2011)

Here's mine...


----------



## DBII (Oct 19, 2011)

The pusher planes, the gunners had to be insane.

DBII


----------



## Archilles (Jan 15, 2012)

The Sopwith Camel it has the most comfirmed air kills


----------



## R Pope (Jul 16, 2012)

I like the early ones, the Eindecker, DH2, Nieuport 11.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

If sleek = streamlined then you want an Albatros. Not many WWI era aircraft have such a refined fuselage shape.

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


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 16, 2012)

I have to admit, it was a good looking aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

I think Junkers was well on the way towards perfecting aluminum monoplanes when the Versallies treaty brought development to a screeching halt. 158 hp wasn't enough for the J9 but engines with twice that much hp were available by 1918. 

Junkers J 9 / D.I - Specifications - Technical Data / Description (english)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> If sleek = streamlined then you want an Albatros. Not many WWI era aircraft have such a refined fuselage shape.
> View attachment 206524


 The Albatross DV does have a beautiful streamlined fuselage, but it must have had a lot of drag somewhere else in it's design, the boxy looking SE5a with the same hp and just a 100 lb lighter was about 20 mph faster.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

Albatros D.V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The D.V entered service in May 1917 and, like the D.III before it, immediately began experiencing structural failures of the lower wing.[4] Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that the D.V was even more prone to wing failures than the D.III. The outboard sections of the upper wing also suffered failures, requiring additional wire bracing.[4] Furthermore, the D.V offered very little improvement in performance.[3] This caused considerable dismay among frontline pilots, many of whom preferred the older D.III. Manfred von Richthofen was particularly critical of the new aircraft. In a July 1917 letter, he described the D.V as "so obsolete and so ridiculously inferior to the English that one can't do anything with this aircraft." British tests of a captured D.V revealed that the aircraft was slow to maneuver, heavy on the controls, and tiring to fly.



Looking sleek is no guarantee of good performance. Otherwise the WWI era Albatros and WWII era P-39 would have been world beaters. 8)


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 17, 2012)

The Austrians built the Albatross DV also, but made a few changes in the wing structure, and didn't have the folding wing problem. They also left off the large spinner, and the aircraft was a few mph faster.
You can't look at a Albatross and see why it was so slow in comparision with some other ac of the same era, with equal power. I wonder if everbodies way of rating power was really equal.


----------



## prem895 (Oct 8, 2012)

For me, The Gotha G.IV BTW The Wingnut Wings 1/32 version is absolutly outstanding. Have one in the stash,but I need a hell of a lot more builds before I tackle that one

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Oct 8, 2012)

Well for me, now, it's the F2.b since I have found a Davidson, RFC, who flew them in WWI and received the Military Cross and was a 6 victory ace. The long off GB WWI project will be his plane.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 19, 2012)

Fokker E-III


----------



## R Pope (Oct 22, 2012)

Later planes, I like the Sopwith Tripe's of Naval 10 "Black Flight", CO Collishaw.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 26, 2012)

...would have allowed for some very neat monoplane fighter designs to be adopted.
The trend was towards the monoplane selected by the airforce for the main fighter 1919.

Selected by the previous competition was the Fokker E-V, which is well known:





however, most manufacturers submitted only monoplane designs by late 1918 for fighter A/C:
Fairly unknown is this one, a Daimler L11. We don´t know much details about this plane´s performance.




Fokker submitted four monoplane fighters, here the V21:




Dornier was working on a monoplane successor of the Do-D, which later became the Do-H:




The Junkers DI has been mentioned above, but this Eindecker from LFG Roland is possibly less well known:




The Pfalz Werke also worked on an improved Eindecker model, a successor to the D-X from the previous competition:




Siemens-Schuckert had a potential winner, the SSW-DVI, to come with a hardpoint for external loads (a drop tank like in Dornier´s proposal):




Plenty of monoplanes in the competition...


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 26, 2012)

Great stuff, delcyros.


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2012)

For me the question of 'my favourite' is two fold. 
1) Which plane I like. 
2) which plane , if I had to fly into war would I prefer to be in....

1) it impossible to answer as I admire them all for different reasons.
2) SE5a. Not the prettiest I grant you but,a robust fighter and I'll settle for that.
Cheers
John

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 24, 2012)

Although I've posted a picture of my personal favourite, the Sopwith T.1 Torpedoplane, I'm reading a book about the recreation of an airworthy F.E.2b here in New Zealand - there are actually two now flying. It's an unsung type that had a better war and a bigger following at the time than history would have us believe. Despite being obsolete from midway through the war, the 'Fee' saw service as a night bomber right until the very end of the war. Only components of an original example survives; incorporated into the RAF Museum's example.

Building the FE.2b | The Vintage Aviator

Flying the FE.2b | The Vintage Aviator

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 24, 2012)

John, can't fault you on your choice of S.E.5a - a grand machine that looks like a fighter should. 

Prem985, all we need now is for The Vintage Aviator to build a full scale airworthy Gotha G IV!


----------



## zoomar (Jan 22, 2013)

I am particularly fond of the Pfalz D-III. Certainly not the best German fighter of the war, but very rugged and in service far longer than many more famous types. Beautiful and sleek. I also appreciate the Fokker D-VII and Camel. But my favorite WW1 aircraft is not an airplane at all. It is the zeppelin rigid airship.


----------



## Avionette (Mar 2, 2013)

DaveB.inVa said:


> For me I have always liked the Spads. Recently Ive really started to like the Spad XII. Its sort of an oddity. It has a single .303 Vickers machine gun firing through the propeller plus a single 37mm Puteaux cannon firing through the propeller shaft. The Puteaux was a tank cannon shortened and adapted to the Spad. It was a single shot gun that had to be hand loaded. Since the breach of the cannon was sitting between the pilots legs its obvious that a regular "stick" control couldnt be used. So the Spad XII used Deperdussin controls. These were similar in layout to the controls used on the P-38 or most bombers where a wheel controls the ailerons and moving the yoke controls the elevator. It had a Hispano-Suiza 8Cb, liquid cooled V8 engine producing 220 hp driving the propeller through a reduction gear. This had an advantage to other designs using rotary engines in that the pilot didn't have to deal with the large gyroscopic forces resulting from spinning the entire engine.
> 
> Other favorites of mine however are the Sopwith Camel and Pup for their rotaries! The rotary is unique and almost unknown and unheard of these days. Noone ever imagines that you could solidly attach the propeller to the engine and then spin the engine and prop together! This allowed for some wild handling and quick turns... in one direction however. The rotaries of the time had a high power to weight ratio plus were very intriguing (at least to me) with their poppet valves located in the piston, no throttle to speak of (using a blip switch) plus all the castor oil!! Pretty cool stuff!!


 
I like all airckrafts used during ww1, but not prototype! ....example Albatros triplane etc.


----------



## Readie (Mar 9, 2013)

Avionette said:


> I like all airckrafts used during ww1, but not prototype! ....example Albatros triplane etc.




They all have something to offer that's true.
Brave boys flying those planes !!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Sep 5, 2013)

One of those potential very good aircraft, now largely forgotten:






BAT fk.23 Bantam.
Designed by Dutch designer Koolhoven it was meant to be the British answer to that other Dutch model, Fokker D.VII. 
Interesting because it was one on the first aircrafts with a fixed radial engine. Unfortunately too late to do anything, just a few reached France.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2013)

Good post Marcel. That is an interesting plane.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 7, 2013)

Avro 504. It may not have been in any significant combat, but it did train combat pilots until the mid-1930s and seems to have had minor use in WW2. Name one other aircraft that served in both WW1 and WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beitou (Dec 12, 2013)

The DH2, broke the Fokker scurge and looked like an angry bee, served well past its use by date but was still a useful machine. Wouldn't want to nose it over on landing though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2013)

Sopwith Pup - simply beautiful. Oh, and the RE8 (aka "Harry Tate") for pure, bluddy-minded ugliness!


----------



## silence (Dec 13, 2013)

Albatros D series - love that torpedo shape, low upper wing, and plywood skin.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 13, 2013)

Marcel said:


> One of those potential very good aircraft, now largely forgotten:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately the Bat Bantam was one of a large number of British planes cursed with an ABC engine. Tens of thousands of ABC engines were ordered in 1918 but they were all universally poor and the RAF would have been in deep trouble in 1919-1920 if the war had carried on. ABC Dragonfly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Milosh (Dec 16, 2013)

A plug for Fanair's link

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/world-war-i/war-air-39266.html

Worth the read.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 16, 2013)

Have a few!


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 25, 2013)

> Avro 504. It may not have been in any significant combat



To add to the many tasks carried out by this great aeroplane, Avro 504s carried out combat operations as bombers _and_ fighters. In fact Avro 504s carried out one of the very first strategic bombing raids of the Great War and in history when on 21 November four RNAS examples attacked the Zeppelin factory hangars at Friedrichshafen. Flying from Southern France, the aircraft managed to do superficial damage only and one Avro was shot down and its crew captured.

The Avro 504C was a specific single-seat variant modified especially for shooting down airships. These carried out many patrols in search of Zeppelins over Britain, but none managed to cause any damage to any. The 'Zeppelin Chaser's problem was that it did not have a very high speed or climb rate, nor could it reach the altitudes the German airships often flew at. The Avro 504B two-seater was also used for anti Zeppelin operations, being scrambled (!) during a number of early German raids against Britain in 1915 and it too, suffered the same issues as all the early British interceptors.

A type that is often maligned, but carried out an enormous variety of duties its designer (Geoffrey de Havilland) could not have foreseen during the war, was the B.E.2 family. Light bomber, photo reconnaissance, single and two seat scout, specialised night fighter/Zeppelin interceptor, artillery spotting, crew trainer, fleet shadower/maritime reconnaissance, non-rigid airship control car to name a few. B.E.2s bear the distinction of shooting down more airships than any other type of aeroplane.


----------



## Glider (Dec 27, 2013)

Bristol M1, an aircraft way ahead of its time and a monument to the poor leadership that existed in the UK at the time


----------



## prem895 (Dec 27, 2013)

Glider said:


> Bristol M1, an aircraft way ahead of its time and a monument to the poor leadership that existed in the UK at the time



Just goggled it, nice looking mount,and not a bad performer


----------



## Akuma (Jun 10, 2021)

Hansa-Brandenburg W.33

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Jun 10, 2021)

Hi,
I've always liked the appearance of the Spad VIII and Albatros DIII.
Pat

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 11, 2021)

The SE 5A. It was the best Allied fighter in the comic book "Enemy Ace" by DC comics.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

TheMustangRider said:


> This are the ones I like by their nationalities:
> 
> Great Britain - S.E.5a
> France - Spad XIII
> Germany - Albatros DIII



Exactly my preferences as well.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

I have a new favourite...the Bristol F2b Fighter. It jumped to the top of my priority list when I discovered a first cousin of my Grandmother, who lived across the street from her, flew Brisfits with 11 Sqn in WW1. 

Here's a pic of one of the airframes recorded in his logbook (not sure how the pilot would reach the gun above the top wing in flight...the mount seems pretty tall to my eyes):

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I have a new favourite...the Bristol F2b Fighter. It jumped to the top of my priority list when I discovered a first cousin of my Grandmother, who lived across the street from her, flew Brisfits with 11 Sqn in WW1.
> 
> Here's a pic of one of the airframes recorded in his logbook (not sure how the pilot would reach the gun above the top wing in flight...the mount seems pretty tall to my eyes):



I believe the guns were fired via a trigger in the cockpit (you can see the cable on the right side of this pic), and slid down and back along rails in order to reload on the Foster mount:






If you magnify your own photo, you'll see that this Brisfit does have a Foster mount.

I can't remember which British ace it was who'd unlock the gun and bring it partially down the rails (on his SE5a) in order to shoot vertically into the bellies of an opponent. Or maybe that was just him posing, as the pic I've seen was taken on the ground.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I believe the guns were fired via a trigger in the cockpit (you can see the cable on the right side of this pic), and slid down and back along rails in order to reload on the Foster mount:
> 
> View attachment 627042
> 
> ...



Agree it's a Foster Mount...but on E2586 it's been fitted on stilts and stands a good foot or more above the upper surface of the wing. Just reaching that in flight would have been....sporting?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Agree it's a Foster Mount...but on E2586 it's been fitted on stilts and stands a good foot or more above the upper surface of the wing. Just reaching that in flight would have been....sporting?!



Agreed, reloading would have been tricky, and clearly a straight-and-level evolution. But the actual firing would've been done while sitting and maneuvering.

Though I gotta say that doing a straight-and-level reload in combat is probably not a good idea! Drums held either 47 or 97 rounds, and I'm not sure which drum any of the WWI planes under discussion used. But changing it in flight probably got one's pucker-meter moving the needle clockwise.

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


----------



## ClayO (Jun 11, 2021)

Being a gunner in an FE2b would send my the pucker meter off the charts. Here's a shot of the how the gunner would fire to the rear. All he had to hold onto was a gun on a swivel mount; everything above his ankles was hanging out in the breeze. During flight, the gunner would sit on the edge of his cockpit, facing backwards to keep an eye out for enemy aircraft. Those guys were made of pretty stern stuff.





Picture from the Tangmere Museum.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

ClayO said:


> Being a gunner in an FE2 would send my the pucker meter off the charts. Here's a shot of the how the gunner would fire to the rear. All he had to hold onto was a gun on a swivel mount; everything above his ankles was hanging out in the breeze. During flight, the gunner would sit on the edge of his cockpit, facing backwards to keep an eye out for enemy aircraft. Those guys were made of pretty stern stuff.
> 
> View attachment 627056
> 
> Picture from the Tangmere Museum.



And pray that the tether strap connecting them to the aircraft didn't snap.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

ClayO said:


> Being a gunner in an FE2 would send my the pucker meter off the charts. Here's a shot of the how the gunner would fire to the rear. All he had to hold onto was a gun on a swivel mount; everything above his ankles was hanging out in the breeze. During flight, the gunner would sit on the edge of his cockpit, facing backwards to keep an eye out for enemy aircraft. Those guys were made of pretty stern stuff.
> 
> View attachment 627056
> 
> Picture from the Tangmere Museum.



Now imagine the maneuvering that comes along with the pilot making his a/c a difficult target. Jesus please us!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 11, 2021)

This is one of the scariest aircraft I've ever seen...the BE9 which, thank heavens, never went into production (although a single version was actually sent to France for operational trials and flew a few sorties):






The potential problems with this design are many...proximity to the propeller, communicating with the pilot, risk of getting crushed by the engine in a landing....etc.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

The great thing about the early days of aviation is seeing what designers were willing to throw at the wall to see what stuck. Many not sensible at all, but the creativity is just off the charts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jun 11, 2021)

Some real head scratchers here.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

ClayO said:


> Some real head scratchers here.



Be happy jet propulsion was few decades ahead.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 11, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> but on E2586 it's been fitted on stilts and stands a good foot or more above the upper surface of the wing.



Interesting photo Mark.
This is amateurish, but a schematic with those accompanying printed scales - shows the gun must be mounted at least 16" above the top wing to miss hitting the tips of the massive 9' 8" prop...

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


----------



## Akuma (Jun 12, 2021)

cheddar cheese said:


> I like the Sopwith camel - a bitch to fly but once mastered a deadly machine.


 I once read that, throughout WWI, the Camel was credited with bringing down about 450 enemy machines. That same article went on to say that the Camel killed about 435 of it's own pilots in non combat related accidents. I think that 'Deadly' is an apt description. Postscript: I once had occasion to speak with a pilot who built and flew an exact replica of a Sopwith Camel at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. I asked him how filling the secondary fuel tank located behind the pilot affected handling. He told me that he never put fuel in that tank and that the Camel was an airplane with so many handling quirks that to safely learn to fly it a pilot had to operate at sufficiently high altitudes to enable recovery from the inevitable mistakes.


----------



## wingnuts (Jun 14, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Exactly my preferences as well.


----------



## rob23 (Jun 16, 2021)

I've always liked the Neiuports. Good enough for Albert Ball, good enough for me.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 16, 2021)

Akuma said:


> I once read that, throughout WWI, the Camel was credited with bringing down about 450 enemy machines. That same article went on to say that the Camel killed about 435 of it's own pilots in non combat related accidents. I think that 'Deadly' is an apt description. Postscript: I once had occasion to speak with a pilot who built and flew an exact replica of a Sopwith Camel at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. I asked him how filling the secondary fuel tank located behind the pilot affected handling. He told me that he never put fuel in that tank and that the Camel was an airplane with so many handling quirks that to safely learn to fly it a pilot had to operate at sufficiently high altitudes to enable recovery from the inevitable mistakes.


The Air and Space Museum site credits the Camel with 1294 aircraft shot down, and I think Wiki also credits it with about the same number, but that's Wiki.
There's even one site that claims the Camel shot down over 3000 !!!
But since the Luftskeitkrafte lost 3126 aircraft due to enemy action during the entire war, I think that 3000 figure is very doubtful.
Even the 1294 looks a little high when you consider that that means the Germans loses due to the Camel were over 1/3 for the entire war, and the Camel was in use only a little over a year and a half.

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


----------



## space dodo (Jun 17, 2021)

sopwith dolphin


----------



## dr 1 ace (Jun 21, 2021)

Fokker D VII so many schemes and only weapon ever specifically named in an Armistce Agreement and of Course the DR.I. Legends always seem to trump reality.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

dr 1 ace said:


> Fokker D VII so many schemes and only weapon ever specifically named in an Armistce Agreement and of Course the DR.I. Legends always seem to trump reality.


I’m not sure if it was specifically mentioned in the armistice treaty but in a later codicil. 
Military Aviation History channel on YouTube has a video on this very subject.


----------



## Hardlydank (Jun 21, 2021)

Can't believe nobody mentioned it specifically yet, but my favorite is definitely the Nieuport 11, the French saved them up and deployed them en masse. It was the plane mostly responsible for ending the Fokker Scourge. I love its compact construction and sesquiplane layout

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jun 23, 2021)

I said the Nieuports, as in all of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jul 2, 2021)

rob23 said:


> I said the Nieuports, as in all of them.


The Nieuports (especially the 11 and 17) get a bad rap for the fabric coming off the upper wing during steep dive. From what I've read, that was true of several other planes of the era also (although a quick search didn't come up with any examples). Any idea why the Nieuports were blamed so much more for this problem? Was it really that much worse, or were there just more of them produced before they fixed the problem, so it happened more often to Nieuports?


----------



## rob23 (Jul 2, 2021)

ClayO said:


> The Nieuports (especially the 11 and 17) get a bad rap for the fabric coming off the upper wing during steep dive. From what I've read, that was true of several other planes of the era also (although a quick search didn't come up with any examples). Any idea why the Nieuports were blamed so much more for this problem? Was it really that much worse, or were there just more of them produced before they fixed the problem, so it happened more often to Nieuports?


I also read about the wing coming apart thing for the Nieuports and other airplanes of the era. I think some German airplanes were prone to come apart but offhand don't remember any specifically.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 2, 2021)

rob23 said:


> I also read about the wing coming apart thing for the Nieuports and other airplanes of the era. I think some German airplanes were prone to come apart but offhand don't remember any specifically.



This. Both the Nieuport 11 and 17 as well as the Albatros DIII has issues with partial or even catastrophic structural failure of the wings. I'm sure there are other airplanes which shared this issue, but would have to reread to dig up the models.

ETA: Another one which I just remembered was the Sopwith Triplane.

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


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 2, 2021)

About any aircraft with V-struts in the WW! era had problems with in flight wing failure, they didn't understand single spar wings were prone to aero flutter..
Most Nieuport, until late war had V-struts, Albatross, D III, and DV,

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 2, 2021)

My vote is the Zeppelins.
Just like me. Big and fat, full of hot air, and likely to crash and burn at any moment.

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


----------



## ClayO (Jul 6, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> My vote is the Zeppelins.
> Just like me. Big and fat, full of hot air, and likely to crash and burn at any moment.


Actually full of gas - and no, I'm not pulling your finger.

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


----------



## Kyushuj7w (Aug 3, 2021)

Always liked this one though can't find much on its record other than on wikipedia. which is hit and miss at best. I have the old eduard DIII kit but I hear the new one is superior. This reproduction is at Rhinebeck but another is in a museum out west in the USA another repro in Germany and one in New Zealand. The fuselage of an original may exist in the Krakow museum in Poland.







Although the short landing gear and limited prop clearance led to tricky landing, the plane was otherwise easy to fly. It had a very short take-off run and at heights above 4,000 m (13,000 ft) was faster and more manoeuvrable than the Mercedes-powered Fokker D.VII. Its most notable feature was its phenomenal rate of climb and extremely high service ceiling—it could reach 6,000 m (20,000 ft) in under 141​⁄2​ minutes. In 36 minutes it could reach 8,100 m (26,600 ft), about 1,200 m (3,900 ft) higher than the ceiling of the Fokker. Production of the D.IV continued after the cease-fire into 1919 being used by the Swiss. Aircraft started reaching operational units in August but of the 280 ordered only 123 were completed by the end of the war, about half of those reaching operational units.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2021)

Interesting paint scheme on that aircraft.
It appears to be Georg Von Hantelmann's, but he only ever flew the D.VII with Jasta 15.


----------



## Kyushuj7w (Aug 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting paint scheme on that aircraft.
> It appears to be Georg Von Hantelmann's, but he only ever flew the D.VII with Jasta 15.


That's what I found as well. Samples of the aircraft were initially sent to multilple squadrons for testing and supposedly sent back to the factories for modifications or repairs not able to be performed at the squadron or rear area depots. So while it is possible he flew one in field for testing, he scored no victories in it. I wonder if his grave survived WW2 as his birth place is just north and west of Poznan. The church sponsored by the family has a cemetery of the family members that seems to have survived WW2 and is in a town of reasonable size, while the area he was murdered in supposedly by poachers, is still farm land and forrested with a few along the roadside hamlets that probably did not exist in the early 20's.


----------



## Akuma (Aug 4, 2021)

Kyushuj7w said:


> Always liked this one though can't find much on its record other than on wikipedia. which is hit and miss at best. I have the old eduard DIII kit but I hear the new one is superior. This reproduction is at Rhinebeck but another is in a museum out west in the USA another repro in Germany and one in New Zealand. The fuselage of an original may exist in the Krakow museum in Poland.
> 
> View attachment 636288
> 
> ...


Siemens Schuckert DIV. I've read that MvR happened to test fly a Siemens Schukert ( maybe a DIII, I don't remember exactly) and presumably said he liked the way it climbed but that it needed to be lubricated better. Perhaps the engine was running hotter than it should have been. I remember this story being credited to an aircraft designer named Alexander Lippisch.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2021)

Kyushuj7w said:


> and one in New Zealand.



There's two in New Zealand. There's this one in Blenheim...




Knights of the Sky 48 

And a flyable reproduction in Auckland, registered ZK-SSW, as you do.

The best info on the Siemens Schuckert types can be found in good ole' books.









Siemens-Schuckert Aircraft of WWI by Herris, Jack | Book


12 Aeronaut Books Siemens-Schuckert Aircraft of WWI




www.scalemates.com





I have a copy of this, it is very detailed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2021)

Kyushuj7w said:


> The fuselage of an original may exist in the Krakow museum in Poland.


Yup, the fuselage and Siemes Halske engine are from a D IV but the aircraft was modified by the Albatros concern for a high altitude flight and a new set of wings was fitted. Unfortunately the wings fell off before they got to fly it. I have a photo of it somewhere. It had real stalky undercarriage.









Albatros H 1 - Wikipedia







it.wikipedia.org


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2021)

Still curious as to why that Siemens is painted in Hantelemann's scheme, as his Fokker D.VII was painted like that when he was with Jasta 15.
His initial fighter was an Albatros with Jasta 18 and he didn't have it personalized.


----------



## Kyushuj7w (Aug 5, 2021)

Maybe they were looking for an eye catchnig theme compared to other in their hangers.. It only taxis and never flew. If i get up there again I'll have to ask one of the docents ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> This. Both the Nieuport 11 and 17 as well as the Albatros DIII has issues with partial or even catastrophic structural failure of the wings.



In the case of the Nieuport 11 the issue was the design, essentially Delage the designer was going for a monoplane wing to lower drag, so the thing was essentially (as described in a book I read once) a parasol monoplane with a sesquiplane wing added for strength. When the Nie.11s pulled hard manoeuvres they couldn't withstand the forces on them and suffered structural failure. Delage did strengthen the Nie.17 and it certainly happened less, but it was regarded as a fine fighter by those that flew it, despite its reputation.

Albatros D Vs and D Vas suffered structural weakness, so they added a supplementary strut to the foremost of the V interplane struts. Here's a D Va without the strut.




DSC_5823

Here's one with the strut.




RAFM 71

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 5, 2021)

Thanks for the correction. My understanding was that in a sesquiplane layout, the single lower-spar/single attachment-point was the weak spot in both airplanes.

'Tis why I come here, to learn schtuff.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My understanding was that in a sesquiplane layout, the single lower-spar/single attachment-point was the weak spot in both airplanes.



Oh yeah, that definitely was what the issue was and it was a sesquiplane in layout, but it was intended that the lower wing was there to support the upper wing, is all. The Nieuports are light as a feather, I guess that's what pilots liked about them, so they felt they could throw them about.





Nieuport XI-3


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Oh yeah, that definitely was what the issue was and it was a sesquiplane in layout, but it was intended that the lower wing was there to support the upper wing, is all. The Nieuports are light as a feather, I guess that's what pilots liked about them, so they felt they could throw them about.
> 
> View attachment 636536
> Nieuport XI-3



The torsion on the lower wing was probably pretty rough.


----------



## Kyushuj7w (Aug 7, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The best info on the Siemens Schuckert types can be found in good ole' books.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A great series of books. Certainly not cheap by any means. One review says pictures are a bit blurry. Do you find this to be true or just another example of an old guy not putting on his reading glasses


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 20, 2021)

Kyushuj7w said:


> A great series of books. Certainly not cheap by any means. One review says pictures are a bit blurry. Do you find this to be true or just another example of an old guy not putting on his reading glasses



The print quality isn't great, but the content is good and likely among the most detailed in English on Siemens-Schuckert. I don't have any of the others, but I suspect their treatment will be equally as good. To be honest, I can't vouch for their accuracy, but the Siemens one provides a lot of stuff I didn't know before I bought the book. When I was in Berlin two years ago I went to the site of the first airfield that Siemens built, which is in the suburb of Karlshorst and of which there are the derelict remains of airfield buildings, so I wanted a bit of background, but there is little info on the buildings. The Siemens factory in the northwest of Berlin is where they developed their aeroplanes, whereas the site at Karlshorst was where its airship shed was located.

The derelict hangars were the first concrete aircraft hangars in Germany.




Europe 341 

The Siemens airship and it's shed on a display board at the site.




Europe 344 

That view today. The site is fenced off as a wildlife reserve and the fence is electrified to deter casual passers-by.




Europe 343

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

