Dogfight

[Elvis]

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.

 

[rednev]

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.

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.

 

[Elvis]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Elvis]

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

 

[Elvis]

...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]

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]

...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

 

[gumbyk]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Elvis]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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]

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.