BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I stand corrected then 8) The AFB never saw service, did the Vickers? If not, I wonder which was the first type to use this weapon arrangement in combat?
Sopwith Pup vs. S.E.5
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Bombtaxi,
>If not, I wonder which was the first type to use this weapon arrangement in combat?
The Spad S.XII, I guess - a Spad S. VII derivative with extended wingspan and a 37 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. I believe Fonck flew this type for a while.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>If not, I wonder which was the first type to use this weapon arrangement in combat?
The Spad S.XII, I guess - a Spad S. VII derivative with extended wingspan and a 37 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. I believe Fonck flew this type for a while.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In looking at this match up, the Pup was a lot lighter than the S.E.5 and my guess more maneuvable. The S.E.5 was over 20 mph faster and had better armament. With equal pilots I'd put my money on the S.E.5 and avoid a turning fight.
No doubt the S.E.5 was the more advanced of the two and represented the future or aerial combat.
No doubt the S.E.5 was the more advanced of the two and represented the future or aerial combat.
G'day SW. Historically the Pup was never going to meet the Fokker in combat as the RFC retired the Pup from the Western front in November 1917 and the Fokker D.VII didn't reach squadrons until April 1918.
G'day Tim. Was Ball the only pilot capable of this stunt? Others must have tried it. I also wonder how many kills Ball achieved with this technique? J.M. Bruce in his book "Aeroplanes of the RFC" describes the number as "several" and only while using the Nieuport 16?
G'day BT. No, the Vickers never saw service. I've read today that the original S.E.5 design had the MG positioned also to fire through the propeller hub but in the end it never eventuated. Ball's S.E.5, A4850 (the one he died in) originally had a downward firing Lewis positioned on the cockpit floor. He also had the windscreen removed and the seat lowered.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Thanks Henning and Graeme 8) Didn't know about the downward firing MG on Balls SE5, there can't have been much room in the cockpit with a Lewis and drum between your feet?!
- Thread starter
- #26
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
ok, ok, I should have done the Camel instead of the Pup! 
Glider
Captain
ok, ok, I should have done the Camel instead of the Pup!
I would still go for the SE5a over the Camel. It was faster in a straight line and stronger giving it better dive and climb characteristics which only helped. As an aside it was also a lot easier to fly.
The RAF considered the Camel to be out of date at the end of the war and was being replaced by other types such as the Snipe.
Hi Tim. Bruce only mentions Ball and his Foster trick with his Nieuport 16 entry and so I assumed that it was this aircraft he achieved those victories with. I guess he flew a number of different Nieuports. This is one he flew, a Nieuport 16 A126 (N1133)...
All RFC Nieuports from the 16 to 23 had the Foster mounting...
...so I thought that a lot of pilots would have tried the technique. I also assumed that since he didn't like the S.E.5 at first and actually sought permission to retain his Nieuport, that few if any of his last S.E.5 victories would have been achieved with the method we're discussing?
At first I thought his Nieuport didn't have the Foster mounting which I guess would have been even a lot harder to swing down and aim accurately?...
From what I've read and considering the Fokker D.VII timeline I agree with the Snipe choice Glider.
The Nieuport had a rudder without a fin. That makes it skidding very easily and quickly. Also, it makes it very manuverable in terms kicking the rudder back and forth. Would help a lot with the manuver of hanging up underneath the apponent and moving your aim point around.
The SE5a did have a rudder with a fin. Not the same level of instability.
The SE5a did have a rudder with a fin. Not the same level of instability.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Wouldn't that also make it a bit squirrelly for gunnery?
It must have been easy as hell into a spin and hard as hell out...
Yeah, probably murder considering it also had a radial engine that spun, putting all sorts of gyroscopic forces on it. Further, and I've read this from people who flew them in the 80s, these things were absolute murder on the pilot. Bumpy, uncomfortable, vibrating, wind blasted. You name it, these guys came down after 2 hours and they were beat to crap.
Easy to spin but probably not that bad to get out. Once you figured it out, that is. Could spin in and out almost by choice.
The Fokker DR1 also had no fin and a radial engine. Famous for it's instability.
Gunnery, good question. For a few, it was probably a benefit (guys of unusual ability like Ball). For others, it may've reduced them to the level of get close and blast 'em. It works.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
The basic instability of several WWI fighter designs was the reason that most successful pilots closed to point blank range before opening fire. It also made these planes wickedly maneuverable dogfighters, and deadly machines to fly in. I recently read a history of the RFC which put into perspective how many pilots, rookies and veterans alike, were killed through accidents, often caused by failure of the aircraft, both structural and aerodynamic. The Morane Type N parasol acquired a particularly nasty reputation as a pilot killer (Mapplebeck was killed performing aerobatics in one) - but had an equal reputation as a deadly fighter in the right hands...
Always think about the Camel when somebody mentions a pilot killer. But there were others.
The DH2 had very thin wings. Used to come off if stressed. The D series of Albatross had problems with the wings coming off during high speed dives. DR1 had a problem with the top wing leaving the airplane (or at least parts of it) in flight. And there were many others.
I remember reading one story in A.G. Lee's "No Parachute" about a flight of Pups coming back after a patrol when the wings on one of them folded back, in flight, at 10K. Lee wrote that he saw the pilot standing in the wreckage as it fell, trying to figure out if he should ride it down or jump.
All in all, you had to hand it to those pilots back then. Not only were the other side trying to kill them, so were their own aircraft.
The DH2 had very thin wings. Used to come off if stressed. The D series of Albatross had problems with the wings coming off during high speed dives. DR1 had a problem with the top wing leaving the airplane (or at least parts of it) in flight. And there were many others.
I remember reading one story in A.G. Lee's "No Parachute" about a flight of Pups coming back after a patrol when the wings on one of them folded back, in flight, at 10K. Lee wrote that he saw the pilot standing in the wreckage as it fell, trying to figure out if he should ride it down or jump.
All in all, you had to hand it to those pilots back then. Not only were the other side trying to kill them, so were their own aircraft.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I think most, if not all, WWI designs were somewhat prone to structural failure. Bear in mind that prior to 1914, dogfighting was unknown, and the RFC banned aerobatics as being unnecessary and dangerous. Fast foward just two years and you have the beginnings of fighter tactics - Ball is attacking his prey from the blind spot below, the Eindekkers are using a prototypical form of boom 'n' zoom, and the Dicta Boelcke are setting the broad outlines of aerial combat for the next 30 years. Two years later still, and you have developing full-squadron tactics over the Western Front. All of these tactical developments fundamentally changed the way aircraft were handled, and the way that airframes were placed under physical stress.
Somehow, airframe design had to keep up with all of this. I find it amazing that in four years, we went from the BE2 and Taube to the Snipe and DVII. It can hardly be surprising that in an almost brand new field of engineering, developing in a combat situation, there would a rate of failures we now find horrifying. I just amazed that there were not more, all things considered.
And certainly, there is an element of myth and misconception in some of the pilot killer reputations. The DH2 was something of an 'F-104' of it's day - while much maligned throughout the RFC as a 'spinning incinerator'. Lanoe Hawker certainly disagreed, and having taught his own colleagues how to fly the type, even taught pilots of other units too...
EDIT: Correction to my last post, I believe Mapplebeck was killed in a Bullet, not a Type N, and it was the Bullet whose reputation I was alluding to.
Somehow, airframe design had to keep up with all of this. I find it amazing that in four years, we went from the BE2 and Taube to the Snipe and DVII. It can hardly be surprising that in an almost brand new field of engineering, developing in a combat situation, there would a rate of failures we now find horrifying. I just amazed that there were not more, all things considered.
And certainly, there is an element of myth and misconception in some of the pilot killer reputations. The DH2 was something of an 'F-104' of it's day - while much maligned throughout the RFC as a 'spinning incinerator'. Lanoe Hawker certainly disagreed, and having taught his own colleagues how to fly the type, even taught pilots of other units too...
EDIT: Correction to my last post, I believe Mapplebeck was killed in a Bullet, not a Type N, and it was the Bullet whose reputation I was alluding to.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Cheers Tim. I think we all sometimes forget just how experimental this technology was during WWI - the whole of aerial warfare was essentially conceived in the space of four years, and in some respects, very little has changed since then, although of course the machines themselves have developed exponentially ever since. That is always something to bear in mind when discussing the challenges faced by pilots of that era.
Glider
Captain
Its also worth remembering that th pilots of the day were writing the manual. I used to have a pilots manual for 1915 describing how to fly and there was a chilling para about flying in cloud.
IIRC It described how the instruments reacted and finished off by saying that they believed that the aircraft might have entered a spin in the cloud but were not sure. Due to this flying in cloud was banned.
Wish I could find it now.
I also have a reprint of Practical Flying a Complete Course of Flying Instruction printed in 1918 for the RAF. This I have found and its interesting how things have progressed over the three years.
My favourite section is 'Installing Confidence' First part is titled, After a Crash.
Gives you some idea how common accidents were.
IIRC It described how the instruments reacted and finished off by saying that they believed that the aircraft might have entered a spin in the cloud but were not sure. Due to this flying in cloud was banned.
Wish I could find it now.
I also have a reprint of Practical Flying a Complete Course of Flying Instruction printed in 1918 for the RAF. This I have found and its interesting how things have progressed over the three years.
My favourite section is 'Installing Confidence' First part is titled, After a Crash.
Gives you some idea how common accidents were.
Sounds like a good read Glider. Heavily illustrated with "Dos and Don'ts" or more of a policy and procedure manual?
