The United States entered World War I in April 1917 with no suitable combat aircraft. They turned to three allies for suitable designs, British, French and Italian. By 1918 the best and fastest fighter (or pursuit) designs had abandoned the faithful rotary engines for liquid-cooled in-line engines.
The Germans flew the Fokker DVII, a very advanced design from one of the most talented Dutch designers to ever sit at a drawing board. The French advanced the SPAD, the British the SE-5. The Americans flew both the SPAD and SE-5, building a respectable number of the latter.
Along with the Liberty engine and the JN-4 trainer the only American aerospace contribution in World War I was the British-designed de Havilland DH-4, but American fighter pilots joined the fight in several allied designs, including the Nieuport and Sopwith Camel, but very successfully in both the SE-5 and SPAD.
Imagine yourself in a leather helmet and goggles, no parachute, in a WWI fighter. Which one?
2007-10-20 19:05:05 · 4 answers · asked by Warren D 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I didn't overlook the Fokker triplane. The problem with the Sopwith Camel and the Triplane was that they were slow compared to the SPAD, SE-5, and DVII. They did maneuver well.
However by 1918 speed and range were beginning to become important factors in fighters. That's why the rotary engined fighters were relegated to a more secondary role by then.
With speed and range a pilot has the initiative over one who just has maneuverability. Remember, in a dogfight the pilot who wins usually makes the rules for the other pilot.
In 1916-17 the rotary-engined fighters were dominant. Incidentally, the Camel is considered by most historians to be the most successful fighter of World War I.
2007-10-21 03:40:03 · update #1
Top speeds for the Sopwith Camel was about 113 mph, and the Fokker Triplane was more or less comparable.
The SPAD had a listed top speed of 179 mph. The DVII and SE 5 were also faster designs.
In 1918 the rotary engine fighters were still more effective against captive balloons, used extensively for battlefield observation.
2007-10-21 04:18:02 · update #2
Of the 3 aircraft mentioned. I would go with the Fokker as being the best aircraft for dog fights. The SE-5 had the top and side guns as well as bomb capability. It was good, but sluggish in flight. The SPAD was advantageous because it was made in far more numbers then the Germans could produce the Fokker versions. Thus numbers won out over superiority in quality. In a one on one fight I believe hands down the Fokker wins if the Pilots are of equal ability. If the German Fokker pilot has less ability then his opponent then he still stands a better chance of survival to a draw in a dogfight based upon his aircrafts ability.
2007-10-21 04:01:19 · answer #1 · answered by aswkingfish 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given a choice, would go with the Sopwith Camel equipped with the Clerget 9B Rotary engine. Great for turning right in, because of the torque from the engine.
2007-10-21 02:50:00 · answer #2 · answered by Mike W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You overlooked the Fokker triplane..much more maneuverable than any of the above !
2007-10-21 04:06:04 · answer #3 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Fokker all the way!
2007-10-21 03:42:33 · answer #4 · answered by Challenger 2 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋