# Speed vs Maneuverability in WWI



## Acheron (Sep 12, 2020)

In WWII, speed turned out to be more important than maneuverability (can I write agility instead?). Faster fighters could use boom-and-zoom tactics on nimbler but slower opponents, who had no way of catching up.

Were things different in WWI? I mean, biplanes were a necessity I understand due to technological constraints making monoplanes' performance unacceptable, but I wonder about the triplanes. After all, these were inherently slower than biplanes I believe, but since these were developed and fielded, I suspect they had other advantages that were at least in theory an acceptable trade-off.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2020)

The Triplanes of the Central Powers and the Allies were fairly agile, though not as fast as the Biplanes like the D.VII or S.E.5a.

In the early part of the war, the Germans had the Fokker E.III, which was a monoplane, and was a terror not for it's maneuverability but it's speed - a blistering 85mph. It also had an innovative synchronized Maxim MG which meant that all of it's rounds were going to the target instead being randomly deflected by striking the prop guards.

As the war drug on, it was of course, out-classed by faster and more agile types, but did prove that speed does give an advantage.


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2020)

Overall the general consensus was that speed had the advantage over agility but as you might expect getting the balance was the most important thing. Most authorities gave the Focker DVII particular praise.

Idiocy was alive and well in WW1. 
In 1916 the UK introduced the Sopwith Pup into service. It was successful, well liked and by no means a poor aircraft. At the same time mid 1916 the Bristol M1 monoplane fighter was available.

Max Speed - Pup 112 mph, M1 130mph
Climb to 10,000ft - Pup 14 minutes, M1 8min 30 seconds
Production - Pup 1,770, M1 130

Can you imagine the difference if the M1 had received the production numbers they clearly deserved

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Sep 12, 2020)

Do we have examples of a faster aircraft being inferior in battle?


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2020)

Not so sure on that. There are examples of the slower plane matching the faster one, but as to inferior not so sure. The Focker Triplane and Sopwith Triples in the hands of a top notch pilot were very dangerous but were only built in limited numbers. They were slow and gave the tactical advantage to the enemy.
The Focker DVII was arguably the best fighter and the SE5a and Spad XIII were faster but again, if you were an average pilot speed if nothing else, gives you the opportunity to run.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2020)

The speed range was also not as great in WW I. very slow planes did around 70-80mph. Very fast ones did 140mph. Most fighters in the last two years of the war did around 110-130mph. 

While a 15mph difference in speed is over 10% it is still only 22 feet per second, trying to out run an opponent at 22fps gives him an awful lot of gun time to even cover 200yds.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 12, 2020)

Interesting to see that the Albatros Dr I triplane experiment (putting a third wing between the original D V biplane) showed there was "no advantage gained with this layout (triplane)". 







Albatros Dr.I - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Interesting to see that the Albatros Dr I triplane experiment (putting a third wing between the original D V biplane) showed there was "no advantage gained with this layout (triplane)".
> 
> View attachment 594729
> 
> ...


Let us not forget the Armstrong-Whitworth F.K.10, which would have been interesting to see how it fared in a brawl.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

Many things changed in aircraft design between the wars but somethings didn't. I would say a Bristol fighter was just as visible at long range as a Spitfire but since speeds were so much lower, climb was as good a "get out" as going home as fast as possible.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Sep 20, 2020)

Climb and combat ceiling (climb at 1000pfm) were the most important. The plane with the altitude advantage automatically had the speed advantage since they would be diving at a much greater speed to combat their opponent.

Pilots of the Spitfire IX reported they had no problem with the FW190 because they could simply climb away. At 20000' a Spitfire IX climbed at 3000fpm while a FW190 climbed at 1900fpm. At 25000' the Spitfire IX still climbed at 3000fpm while the FW190 was nearing it's combat ceiling at 1200fpm. Now the Spitfire IX was probably the best climbing plane in 1943 while the contemporary FW190 was merely average, similar to a Corsair or Thunderbolt.

But the ability to climb above or cruise above your opponent allowed you to dictate terms of the engagement. Or decline combat if it was not part of your mission.

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


----------



## soulezoo (Nov 12, 2020)

Many models were prone to losing a wing in a dive (Albatross, Nieuport, DR I for examples) so a dive had to be carefully reckoned with.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 12, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Interesting to see that the Albatros Dr I triplane experiment (putting a third wing between the original D V biplane) showed there was "no advantage gained with this layout (triplane)".
> 
> View attachment 594729
> 
> ...


Those changes are more than simply adding a new wing - the chord is shorter, but the wings look approximately the same length, and there doesn't seem to be any stagger. It looks like it suffered from poor execution.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2020)

soulezoo said:


> Many models were prone to loosing a wing in a dive (Albatross, Nieuport, DR I for examples) so a dive had to be carefully reckoned with.


The technology was prone to losing things. How could they maintain the quality on the bracing wires and keep the forces on them below what they can stand? If one thing fails it transfers loads to other parts and the whole thing falls apart. 140 MPH isn't fast in aeroplane terms, it would be fast for me in a car of wood and dope held together with wire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## A.G. Williams (Nov 13, 2020)

Higher speed provided a tactical advantage, in that the pilot could choose to engage a slower enemy, or to leave the battle if necessary. A pilot in a significantly slower plane could only react to what the enemy was doing. In WW1, dog-fighting was the standard method of combat but of course this favoured very agile aircraft rather than fast ones. The Italians and Japanese still favoured agility in early WW2.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 9, 2021)

Acheron said:


> In WWII, speed turned out to be more important than maneuverability (can I write agility instead?). Faster fighters could use boom-and-zoom tactics on nimbler but slower opponents, who had no way of catching up.
> 
> Were things different in WWI? I mean, biplanes were a necessity I understand due to technological constraints making monoplanes' performance unacceptable, but I wonder about the triplanes. After all, these were inherently slower than biplanes I believe, but since these were developed and fielded, I suspect they had other advantages that were at least in theory an acceptable trade-off.


MvR was known to have used at least one form of 'Boom and Zoom' to overcome his DR-1s speed disadvantage. He is said to have taken advantage of the the Tripes climb ability to gain an altitude advantage that he would trade off for speed in his attack dive. He would fly past his intended target and then apply rudder to yaw towards the plane he was attacking which would run into his zone of fire. The article I read went on to say this was a tactic he used against 2 seaters. Werner Voss is said to have used boom and zoom with the Pfalz D-III. While I do not know how accurate that description was, it does sound logical for a airplane like the D-3 since while it was relatively slow and not as maneuverable, it was sturdy and capable of diving at speeds that would have damaged other aircraft of that period.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 9, 2021)

The DR.1 was highly acrobatic, which compensated for it's slightly slower speed, although it could out dive most contemporary adversaries.
Voss was best known for his combat in an Albatros D.III, although he also flew a DR.I (103/17) with Jasta 10.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 9, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The DR.1 was highly acrobatic, which compensated for it's slightly slower speed, although it could out dive most contemporary adversaries.
> Voss was best known for his combat in an Albatros D.III, although he also flew a DR.I (103/17) with Jasta 10.


The information I read was that Voss responded to pilots of the Luftstreitkrafte complaints about the Pfalz DIII being not as nimble or fast as the Alb. D series. Apparently he told them that when properly used the Pfalz was an excellent machine and that he liked it.
How accurate this article was, I do not know. After the war many publications had aces saying and doing things that never occurred. Voss was known as a pilot of great ability who could get the most from the airplanes he flew.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2021)

If the DR1 was half as good as its reputation then the Germans would have built more of them. I think it was about 350 built which is a pitiful number.

It was too slow and fragile.

The average pilots skill level was low and if you had a speed advantage you would often gain the tactical advantage and it also gave your inexperienced pilots a way of getting out of trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 9, 2021)

I think the drift away from furballing into BnZ started happening in the last half of 1917. The SE5a and Pfalz DIII introduced it. The triplanes, on both sides, of course made good use of their maneuverability. Camels, too. But in the end, D.VIIs, SE5as, and Spads showed that a sturdy airframe that could survive a dive, and bounce in and out, could handle bidness.

The decision hadn't been reached by the end of the war -- the two philosophies of air-fighting still had a ways to go. The technology was so new that no one really knew how to use it. It'd take another war, and significant technical advances in both engines and armament, for that to be learned.

I personally think there's a reason why tripes were abandoned, that being that equally-powered biplanes were more able to pick and choose their point of engagement. Biplanes could extend and come back for another pass if they chose, or split for home otherwise.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 9, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think the drift away from furballing into BnZ started happening in the last half of 1917. The SE5a and Pfalz DIII introduced it. The triplanes, on both sides, of course made good use of their maneuverability. Camels, too. But in the end, D.VIIs, SE5as, and Spads showed that a sturdy airframe that could survive a dive, and bounce in and out, could handle bidness.
> 
> The decision hadn't been reached by the end of the war -- the two philosophies of air-fighting still had a ways to go. The technology was so new that no one really knew how to use it. It'd take another war, and significant technical advances in both engines and armament, for that to be learned.
> 
> I personally think there's a reason why tripes were abandoned, that being that equally-powered biplanes were more able to pick and choose their point of engagement. Biplanes could extend and come back for another pass if they chose, or split for home otherwise.


Just thought I might add, I've read that at the very end of the war the Germans were starting to include B&Z in their aviation doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 10, 2021)

Akuma said:


> Just thought I might add, I've read that at the very end of the war the Germans were starting to include B&Z in their aviation doctrine.



I think both sides had started to do that. Certainly the SE5a favored that approach too, and remained active up to the Armistice. Both sides also kept turners in the pipeline, too -- the Fokker DVIII and the Sopwith Snipe were both much more corkscrew than dagger. 

I don't think the debate was settled with WWI experience, is my only point.


----------



## Akuma (Jun 11, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think both sides had started to do that. Certainly the SE5a favored that approach too, and remained active up to the Armistice. Both sides also kept turners in the pipeline, too -- the Fokker DVIII and the Sopwith Snipe were both much more corkscrew than dagger.
> 
> I don't think the debate was settled with WWI experience, is my only point.


Good point. After WWI it seems most nations air forces could not decide in which direction to go. The Italians and Japanese were the only ones between the wars that seemed to have firmly decided on dogfighting for their designs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

