# Dogfight



## Elvis (Sep 24, 2018)

Found this earlier today....



The Bristol Fighter is a tough looking plane, and maybe the Fokker pilot is just pushing his plane harder, but the Big Brit just seems to do everything a little more _leisurely_ compared to the Fokker.
While it seems to keep up ok, I think if it were me, and this was a _for real_ dogfight, I'd want to be in the Fokker.
...just an observation, based on what I observed in this video.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Sep 24, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Found this earlier today....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




a choreographed air show routine isnt a good way to judge aircraft performance .in the real world the bristol was a formidable opponent as many a german flier found out the hard way.

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


----------



## Elvis (Sep 24, 2018)

You make a good point. I just noticed they were both doing similar maneuvers and the Fokker just seemed to "snap" through all the moves with more...._urgency_.


----------



## rednev (Sep 24, 2018)

Elvis said:


> You make a good point. I just noticed they were both doing similar maneuvers and the Fokker just seemed to "snap" through all the moves with more...._urgency_.


yep single seater versus two seater but that nasty man in the back adds another dimension. you fly to your aircrafts strengths and exploit your opponents weakness.
when first introduced pilots flew the bristol like a normal two seater and suffered big losses once they realized the fighter part of the name wasnt just advertising 'hype and flew it aggressively it became an effective weapon.
There where bristol pilot gunner teams that made ace but also a lot that made ace both pilots and gunners flying with multiple partners so it would seem it did not require a "special"bond to achieve success.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 24, 2018)

Yes, it's a shame the concept of the heavy fighter with standard fixed armament plus a flexible gun behind couldn't progress to WWII. The various WWII attempts ended up far too heavy to be considered viable in combat with single-seaters, which the F2B certainly was. I guess the nearest WWII equivalents to the F2B would be the Bf 110 or the Beaufighter, which although outstandingly useful machines, just weren't up to tangling with single-seaters in the way the Bristol was.


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 25, 2018)

rednev said:


> yep single seater versus two seater but that nasty man in the back adds another dimension. you fly to your aircrafts strengths and exploit your opponents weakness.
> when first introduced pilots flew the bristol like a normal two seater and suffered big losses once they realized the fighter part of the name wasnt just advertising 'hype and flew it aggressively it became an effective weapon.
> There where bristol pilot gunner teams that made ace but also a lot that made ace both pilots and gunners flying with multiple partners so it would seem it did not require a "special"bond to achieve success.


​
The Brisfit does have a number of blind spots though. Approaching it from below and behind for example. It does also have a slower roll rate than the Fokker - its got a longer wingspan, and although it has two sets of ailerons, doesn't seem to roll as well.

The aircraft can't be flown as a single-seater would be, even though it may be capable of it. The poor guy in back has to be able to aim the gun, and hold on. there weren't any seat belts fitted back then

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


----------



## Elvis (Sep 25, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Yes, it's a shame the concept of the heavy fighter with standard fixed armament plus a flexible gun behind couldn't progress to WWII. The various WWII attempts ended up far too heavy to be considered viable in combat with single-seaters, which the F2B certainly was. I guess the nearest WWII equivalents to the F2B would be the Bf 110 or the Beaufighter, which although outstandingly useful machines, just weren't up to tangling with single-seaters in the way the Bristol was.


Actually, my first thought about this comment was that the SBD/Banshee might've been about as close as it got for WWII aircraft. Sure it lacked top end speed and climb rate, but crafty pilots learned to use the air brakes to their advantage and, for what it was, it was actually considered a plane not to be taken lightly, especially once the ordinance was dropped.


Elvis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 25, 2018)

...btw, quick question about the Bristol fighter. I noticed the lower wing seems to attach at the landing gear and not the body.
Does this mean its a one-piece wing, too?


----------



## rednev (Sep 25, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> The Brisfit does have a number of blind spots though. Approaching it from below and behind for example. It does also have a slower roll rate than the Fokker - its got a longer wingspan, and although it has two sets of ailerons, doesn't seem to roll as well.
> 
> The aircraft can't be flown as a single-seater would be, even though it may be capable of it. The poor guy in back has to be able to aim the gun, and hold on. there weren't any seat belts fitted back then





The Bristol initially failed spectacularly on its first RFC mission on the Western Front with the loss of 5 of the six F.2As being shot down. However pilots and tactics rapidly developed and the Brisfit was from then on a potent and respected aircraft. Although a 2 seater, the aircraft, was best flown like a single seater with the pilot firing the forward gun in the same way as most single seaters and the observer in the rear seat using his single or twin Lewis guns to protect if the aircraft was attacked from the rear.
the above quote is backed up by numerous first hand accounts passive flying got you killed aggressive flying got you kills.


----------



## rednev (Sep 25, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...btw, quick question about the Bristol fighter. I noticed the lower wing seems to attach at the landing gear and not the body.
> Does this mean its a one-piece wing, too?








pic warbirds online taken at duxford

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 25, 2018)

rednev said:


> The Bristol initially failed spectacularly on its first RFC mission on the Western Front with the loss of 5 of the six F.2As being shot down. However pilots and tactics rapidly developed and the Brisfit was from then on a potent and respected aircraft. Although a 2 seater, the aircraft, was best flown like a single seater with the pilot firing the forward gun in the same way as most single seaters and the observer in the rear seat using his single or twin Lewis guns to protect if the aircraft was attacked from the rear.
> the above quote is backed up by numerous first hand accounts passive flying got you killed aggressive flying got you kills.


Yes, fly it differently to the way they flew two-seaters, but also not with the same aggression as single-seaters. Otherwise you'd lose your observer/gunner (and I've read stories about this happening). It's hard enough holding on in the back with normal manoeuvring, let alone aggressive evasion techniques.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2018)

In addition to its impressive wing area, the Bristol has one other advantage in a turning fight. Note the lower wing doesn't go through the fuselage, but is one continuous lift producing span, tip to tip. And despite its large wings and second seat, doesn't weigh that much more than a large single seater. A perfect example of Heinemann's "simplicate and add lightness" philosophy.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In addition to its impressive wing area, the Bristol has one other advantage in a turning fight. Note the lower wing doesn't go through the fuselage, but is one continuous lift producing span, tip to tip.



I don't think that section of wing creates much lift. There would be too much interference from the turbulent flow form the prop, and the proximity to the fuselage.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 27, 2018)

That was my thought as well.
I think the bigger benefit here, is that it is (apparently) a one-piece wing. This would make the Bristol a rare bird at that time, since the lower wing(s) on any other biplane would bolt directly to the body, individually.
That plane must've been able to take a high degree of stress, comparatively.


Elvis


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 27, 2018)

Elvis said:


> That was my thought as well.
> I think the bigger benefit here, is that it is (apparently) a one-piece wing. This would make the Bristol a rare bird at that time, since the lower wing(s) on any other biplane would bolt directly to the body, individually.
> That plane must've been able to take a high degree of stress, comparatively.
> 
> ...


Not sure what he original was like, but the replicas all have individual wings bolted to a centre section.
From memory, the rear undercarriage brace goes through between the centre section and the outer wing, and is one piece.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 27, 2018)

So you're saying rednev was leading me astray by posting a pic of the lower wing taken at such an angle that it looks like one solid wing that attaches through the undercarriage?

(pic from that post)






...so where do the two halves bolt together?


----------



## Elvis (Sep 27, 2018)

gumbyk,

Apologies for the accusatory tone of my prior post. I'm just trying to get an idea of what you posted about the lower wing.
Here's another pic, from The Imperial War Museum website, showing that centre section from a different angle...






(this one from Airport-Data.com)


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 27, 2018)

We've got some replicas undergoing restoration at the local airfield, I'll get some photos next time I'm out there.




I'm working from memory, but I think this is the joint, covered by fabric tape, so its not that obvious.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 27, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> I don't think that section of wing creates much lift.


Maybe not, but significantly better than none. It's hard to tell from the photos whether it's a one piece or a three piece wing, but that only affects G rating, not effective lift.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Maybe not, but significantly better than none. It's hard to tell from the photos whether it's a one piece or a three piece wing, but that only affects G rating, not effective lift.
> Cheers,
> Wes


What I do know is that there's a significant drag increase with that sort of set-up. The interference drag with the undercarriage struts, and the proximity of the fuselage to wing upper surface is not insignificant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> We've got some replicas undergoing restoration at the local airfield, I'll get some photos next time I'm out there.
> View attachment 511188
> 
> I'm working from memory, but I think this is the joint, covered by fabric tape, so its not that obvious.


Thanks. Look forward to seeing those pics.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2018)

Looks like there was a center section for the lower wing > #115.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2018)

...and I think the deciding factor is "_115 Wing Spar / Centre Section *attachment joint"*_
Thanks for solving the mystery, guys.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2018)

Thought I'd add my two cents here (adjusted for inflation) but the articles of armistice stated that no Fokker D.VIIs were to remain in German possession.

Of all the aircraft that Germany possessed at the close of hostilities, it was the D.VII that was the focus of the Allies...there is a reason for that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Sep 29, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Thought I'd add my two cents here (adjusted for inflation) but the articles of armistice stated that no Fokker D.VIIs were to remain in German possession.
> 
> Of all the aircraft that Germany possessed at the close of hostilities, it was the D.VII that was the focus of the Allies...there is a reason for that.[/QUO
> two points 1 ernest udet proposed the siemens schuckert d iv be used against allied fighters allowing the less capable fokker d vii to deal with the two seaters.
> ...


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 8, 2018)

You can see the centre-section in the top image, currently covered in cardboard to protect it. The project's been put on the back-burner for hte moment, while they concentrate on other projects with tighter timeframes. There's not much else to see with it at the moment, I'll try to get some more photos as they progress, but it'll be a slow process I think.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 8, 2018)

Will be good to see those projects finished, Aaron.

The strengths of the Bristol Fighter was in the fact that it was, in its pilots' eyes, a joy to fly and that it could actually hold its own with single seat scouts owing to a good power to weight ratio. Singe seaters were known as scouts - a 'fighter', from which the Bristol F.2 was built was a two seat machine that was primarily used for reconnaissance, but could look after itself in combat. This is why the Bristol F.2 is named as such. Obviously, a skilled team of pilot and observer watching the tail more often than not came out of any engagement on top and there are plenty of Bristol aces that confirm this. There are almost as many rear gunner Bristol aces as there are pilot aces in the type.

The highest scoring Bristol Fighter pilot ace was Lt Andrew McKeever, with 30 kills to his credit, the highest scoring Bristol gunner, was Lt Charles Gass, with 39 kills to his credit.

Interestingly, the individual who was tasked with sending the Bristol into combat first was William Leefe Robinson VC commanding 48 Sqn, who was the first to shoot down a German airship (the Schutte Lanz Class SL 11 - not a Zeppelin) over Britain, on 3 September 1916 (with 39 Home Defence Sqn). Sadly, he was a rather aloof character who had no concept of the type of combat that the Bristol should engage in, which resulted in high losses and for the aeroplane an ill-deserved reputation.

On the subject of the lower wing, you can see in this front view of the IWM's Bristol at Duxford, taken in July, that the lower wing is in three sections.




0707 Duxford Bristol Fighter

If I were to make a comparison with a more modern two-seater, I'd say the Hawker Demon or the Boulton Paul Defiant, although the latter had a very different modus operandi. The Demon had a 'turret' of sorts, the FN.1 built by Nash and Thomson, but it wasn't entirely enclosed, although azimuth and elevation of the unit was powered by hydraulics. This surviving Demon isn't fitted with the turret.




0107 Shuttleworth Military Pageant Demon

The Defiant; note the gun turret, a BP A.1 electro-hydraulic unit.




1207 RAFM Cosford Defiant

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Oct 8, 2018)

Didn't the Bristol Fighter have to fly with the gunner or weighted for the lack of gunner as it was unstable if not?


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 8, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Didn't the Bristol Fighter have to fly with the gunner or weighted for the lack of gunner as it was unstable if not?


Yeah, the C of G was too far forward without the gunner. Not really a problem when it was operated though - why would you take off without the gunner in there?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 17, 2018)

Regarding the Bristol's wing placement, The Vintage Aviator has this to say: 


> The unusual placement of the fuselage between the wings was intended to optimise the pilot's view forward and upwards/downwards. The upper wing was placed only 1 foot above the fuselage so only the small airfoil section obscured the view. The minimum gap between the top and bottom wings then dictated the lower wing be placed below the fuselage



They're a pretty reliable source, and sitting in the pilots seat, the forward view is pretty much how they say it is:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 18, 2018)

What I'm noticing from that shot is that the low placement of the top wing tends to "frame" the forward view.
I don't know about you, but it forces me to look forward, straight through the windscreen.


Elvis


----------

