Best WW1 Fighter?

[nuuumannn]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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?

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]

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

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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]

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

 

[nuuumannn]

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.