Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

Both awesome fighters in the right hands and rightly celebrated.
But, I would prefer to be in a SE5a or Spad....
Cheers
John

Airframe and engine technology were advancing so fast during 1914 to 1918 that 6 months newer design was often a decisive advantage.

Hs.8 engine which powered so many French built aircraft is a good example. Multiple versions of this engine, many of which were unreliable. If you get a good engine then your SPAD is an effective fighter aircraft. However there's probably an even chance your engine will be defective. That cannot be confidence inspiring during combat operations.

I think engine failure might have been low down on a pilots list of things to worry about. Several WW1 aircraft had a history of structural failure in flight, The Albatross DV had a lower wing failure problem that was never solved, the Fokker DrI had several upper wing failures in the early models, Lothar Richthofen was lucky to survive after a upper wing failed in his DrI.
Some Nieuports like to shed their wing fabric, these are faults that would usually result in a pilot's death.
Then once combat was entered most single seaters had the gas tank right in front of the pilot, except the Sopwith Camel. It was right behind the pilot, i'll bet that was a comfort.
At least if a engine failed, if it wasn't a catastrophic failure that resulted in a engine fire, a pilot had a good chance of making a controlled landing.

I prefer the camel, the DR 1 was just that little bit too slow. It was not a hugh margin but the camel still had the ability to start and break off combat at its choosing.