Started By
Message

re: As a World War One fighter pilot, if you could pick your plane . . .

Posted on 2/19/18 at 10:15 pm to
Posted by SWCBonfire
South Texas
Member since Aug 2011
1261 posts
Posted on 2/19/18 at 10:15 pm to


SE5a hasn't been mentioned. Most likely WWI fighter aircraft that I wouldn't kill myself in. Top speed around 140, stall speed around 40ish, high ceiling, supposedly a tough old bird and stable shooting platform.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/19/18 at 11:24 pm to
SE5a was not bad but not the best you'd pick, if you had your pick.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/19/18 at 11:25 pm to
I can't believe that nobody has mentioned the Fokker D.VIIF with the 185hp high-compression engine, which was probably the most powerful engine in a WWI fighter.
Posted by IceTiger
Really hot place
Member since Oct 2007
26584 posts
Posted on 2/19/18 at 11:41 pm to
quote:


I considered the F-22 Raptor, but its potential reliability issues and unnecessary stealth don't overcome the pure, proven dog fighting ability of the F-15


Until it's in a dogfight with a raptor
Posted by Nawlens Gator
louisiana
Member since Sep 2005
5832 posts
Posted on 2/19/18 at 11:46 pm to

Gotta be the B-29. Pressurized Bomber could fly higher than ground fire could reach. Destroyed Japan and N. Korea.

Posted by biglego
Ask your mom where I been
Member since Nov 2007
76301 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:24 am to

I’d pick something like this
Posted by SamuelClemens
Earth
Member since Feb 2015
11727 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:31 am to
Sopwith Camel
Posted by SWCBonfire
South Texas
Member since Aug 2011
1261 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:38 am to
Because my family emigrated from Prussia in 1834 to Texas so that no sons would have to fight for a Kaiser again. Krauts can keep their planes. The Albatross D.III was more interesting if you want to go axis powers, but suffered from poor design and workmanship because it was so complicated.

And SE5a's were in service when air superiority was going the allies' way. No fun getting shot down by superior numbers, even in a superior aircraft.
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 5:49 am
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:29 am to
The SE5a and the SPAD XIII were both fine pursuit planes (the term "fighter" wasn't yet in fashion). They were easy planes for the trainees to learn to fly, so fewer training casualties. Planes with rotary engines were much more difficult to learn to fly due to the gyroscopic affect of the rotating engine and propeller block.

The SPAD XIII was fast and it was strong enough to out-dive almost everything. As such, any SPAD XIII pilot could make a zooming pass on his target, damage it or kill it in one pass, and zoom away for another pass. If trouble came he could dive out of it and get away.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:32 am to
quote:

Sopwith Camel


How would you deal with the fact that it was too slow to either catch an enemy or escape from one? That's one reason why the Camel was replaced by the SE5a and SPADXIII. The Camel was equal in speed only to the Fokker Triplane.
Posted by Boatshoes
Member since Dec 2017
6775 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:37 am to
I second the Spad XIII. The inline engine makes it a better choice than the Camel.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:42 am to
quote:

Until it's in a dogfight with a raptor


Is the term "dogfight" really meaningful when your target is over the horizon?

World War ONE was the Age of True Dogfighting because the closer to your target the better. The goal was to fill your front vision with your target -- the enemy pilot's head -- with just enough of a lead to put some rounds in that length area right between the enemy plane's prop and the pilot's head. That's where the engine is, obviously, but also the fuel tank -- the unsealed and very flammable fuel tank -- right in front of the enemy pilot.

So we are talking about the target being about 30 yards away. You need some serious dogfighting skills to get that close. You'll need to be an expert fighter pilot to put your plane and the enemy's plane in that exact position. And you needed to be quick because, even if your plane had two forward facing machine guns, you only had enough ammo to fire for a couple of minutes, maybe less.

THAT is real Dogfighting, not shooting at an over the horizon target or shooting at a target with a guided missile.

The pilot had to really work to manage his engine during fighting. He had to control the throttle, the fuel mixture, the radiator -- all manually -- because if you pulled too many RPMs or the engine got too hot, you'd kill your own engine in the middle of the fight. AND if you pulled too many g-forces, your wings would collapse.

And finally, the stakes were never higher. No ejection seat. Parachutes were not used until the very end of the war. For almost all of the fliers, it was victory or flaming death.
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 10:56 am
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48346 posts
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:46 am to
One of the few weak points of the SE5a -- only one machine gun in front of the pilot. The other on the side of the plane. Much harder to zero onto the same target range.
This post was edited on 2/20/18 at 8:40 pm
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram