Your favorite WWI-planes! [Archive]

View Full Version : Your favorite WWI-planes!

Axalon

04-29-2009, 07:25

Hi all, inspired by the favorite tank-thread I thought it would be fun to play with a favorite "biplane"-thread – WWI exclusively. Anybody else fan of those? I know I am, and as usual I go straight for cool and leave the finer details to those who care and have the know how for it. Regardless, recon-planes and bombers count too in this thread even if I personally have only listed fighters here. Now, without further ado here is my personal list of coolest planes of WWI!

The top 5
----------------
1. Fokker DR1. *
2. Spad 13 **
3. Fokker D.VII ***
4. Sopwith Triplane ****
5. Albatross D.II *****

* The king of cool when it comes to WWI-aircraft I think. First of all it got three wings and just looks drop dead gorgeous. Add too that some exceptional climbrates and turningrates which probably are unrivalled – making it just an excellent plane for raw aerial-combat. And finally it was made immortal by Manfred von Richthofen with his all red schematics on it. It’s just cooler than any other plane I have ever seen! No:1 spot right were it belongs!

** The Spad 13 is just a cool aircraft. Its extremely fast and sturdy and it could easily outrun whatever opposition it ever encountered. It hardly has any impressive turning-rate which means that it probably had to fight in somewhat unorthodox ways but still it was a very good and appreciated aircreaft. My guess is that it was probably the best fighter that the French ever produced for the war apart from Neiuport 17. Spot no:2 and by sheer coolnes it’s well deserved…

*** The D.VII with an overcompressed BMW engine is just sheer cool-excellence. It’s hardly any beautiful plane, its just rugged and robust but it still is really good plane with excellent performance traits. Short of speed it could seriously compete with any allied fighter available that just got to count for something! Possibly one of the best fighters of the entire war they say – that means that this is very, very serious aircraft and thus it gets spot no:3 on my list….

**** This plane got three wings! And it’s the very first plane to ever have that in the war. That means that it is also the template for the later Fokker DR1 and that alone suffice to secured spot no:4 on my list. Add to that, excellent agility and climbrate and the “tripehound” as it was called really did give those “D.II’s” a hard time when it entered service in earliy 1917. The major problem was that it had an underpowered engine and modest armament and the most important thing here – there was too few of these built and deployed. Still, its just a very cool plane and thus it gets a place in my list….

***** The plane that Oswald Boelcke (father of air-combat-tactics) flew only for 2-3 moths and still managed to get 20 confirmed kills with it (very few pilots managed to do such a thing during the entire war). That just got to count for something! When this baby entered service in aug 1916 the allied air-supremacy was quickly brought to a swift end and it never lost that secured supremacy either – other planes did that. It was that good and above all the pilots that flew them finally had an aircraft that at last could keep up with the allied fighters at the time. On general terms it was a better aircraft than almost all other available planes during 1916 except perhaps the excellent Neuiport 17. Anyway, this is the plane that both Boelcke, Richthofen and Voss flew and that certainly makes it cool and worthy enough to secure spot no:5 on my list. It’s just a really cool plane….

Honorable mentions to:
--------------------------
Nieuport 17 - An exceptionally agile plane and good plane for it's day. Especially during 1916
Sopwith Pup – With a Gnome-engine in place this puppy rocks!
S.E.5 - One of the fastest planes of the entire war and a very good solid aircraft!

=========================================================================
EDIT:

For those of you who still have not managed to figure out on your own that this thread are about WWI-planes including all monoplanes, biplanes and triplanes. I would say that this thread is probably not for you….

In most cases, most planes that did serve during WWI happened to be biplanes – hence I simplified the title to “biplanes”. If nothing else me including the Sopwith triplane in my list should kind of give away that fact. It’s either that or I completely believe that the Sopwith triplane to be a biplane or at the very least I was completely unaware of all this until it was thoughtfully pointed out to me. Pick whatever alternative that seems to be the most likely here…. :wink2:

- Cheers

King Kurt

04-29-2009, 09:33

Got to be the Sopwith Camel - widespread useage, highly effective, the Spitfire of WW1

Shame you narrow it to WW1 - the american fighters of the 1930's were nice looking planes, but the ultimate biplane has to be the Swordfish - the key weapon in the hunt for the Bismark, the attack on Taranto which inspired Pearl Harbour and an important weapon against the U Boats in the battle of the Atlantic - now that was a plane!!!

Flavius Clemens

04-29-2009, 17:49

Having grown up reading the Biggles stories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggles, has to be the Sopwith Camel, and then the Bristol Fighter. Nothing to do with logic, just the mythology of those childhood hours spent with my nose in the books.

I guess the inclusion of the Sopwith Triplane means we're not taking 'bi' plane too literally ~:)

I of the Storm

04-30-2009, 10:48

Sopwith Camel FTW. I'm in love with this biplane ever since I've assembled one as a kid. Scale 1:72 of course...

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/files/images/classic-fighters-2003/preview/cf2003-sopwith-camel-and-fokker-riplane1.preview.jpg

How can you not love this one? Also, wasn't Richthofen downed by a Camel? Or was it a S.E. 5?

Tristuskhan

04-30-2009, 15:20

Caproni type 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.5

Tribesman

04-30-2009, 17:46

The top 5
----------------
1. Fokker DR1.
2. Spad 13
3. Fokker D.VII (BMW engine of course)
4. Sopwith Triplane
5. Albatross D.II

Two of those are not biplanes

Tristuskhan

04-30-2009, 18:06

Two of those are not biplanes

Maybe the thread could be renamed "your favourite kite".

A Very Super Market

04-30-2009, 18:41

Gladiator (For a noble attempt at using biplanes in a monoplane era)
Swordfish (For being rickety, unstable, and laughable while somehow kicking butt)

Ethelred Unread

04-30-2009, 19:05

I love biplanes & WW1 aviation too!

Top 5 WW1 aircraft:

1. Sopwith Snipe - late 1918 replacement of Camel with superior handling &tc.
2. Fokker Eindecker - 1st synchron gear plane, beloved of Immelmann & Boelcke.
3. FE2(b) - there's something cool about pushers.*
4. Fokker Dr.I - superior handling characteristics & it's the Red Baron's innit?
5. Handley Page Type O - giant biplane bomber, had a model of one hanging from my ceiling when I was 4.

*except when yours is on fire.

PanzerJaeger

05-01-2009, 00:32

I say 'hah' to your silly biplanes! German aces flew in style.

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/0705012_10.jpg

Axalon

05-01-2009, 23:47

Hello all plane-lovers!

For those of you who still have not managed to figure out on your own that this thread are about WWI-planes including all monoplanes, biplanes and triplanes. I would say that this thread is probably not for you….

In most cases, most planes that did serve during WWI happened to be biplanes – hence I simplified the title to “biplanes”. If nothing else me including the Sopwith triplane in my list should kind of give away that fact. It’s either that or I totally believe that the Sopwith triplane to be a biplane or at the very least I was completely unaware of all this until it was thoughtfully pointed out to me. Pick whatever alternative that seems to be the most likely here…. :wink2:

Now, let’s loosen up people this is just for fun and nothing else! It certainly is not any exams so don’t be shy and it’s quite ok to go just for cool! Let’s see some more lists here! If all else fails at least some more excellent pics! For those who still believe this is some sort of exam or have some urge for it, by all means do some research over at this wonderful site….

http://www.theaerodrome.com/

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/ww1-fighter-planes/sopwith-triplane-fighter.jpg

”Hah!” Right back at you! Fashion and sense of style was alive and kicking over the line as well! “I say!
Care to duel, my good sir?!?”

As for me not liking the Sopwith camel is not entirely true. It’s a fine aircraft and it got especially some nice lines but it just is not among my all time favorites. The two main reason for that is that there are other cooler planes out there and I would rather include them then the camel. And…

For those who care; the camel was an unstable and moody aircraft that was hard and potentially dangerous plane to fly because of that. While having a remarkable turning rate (like the spitfire of WWII) it could hardly otherwise compete with the best of the best in other regards and that was also finally realized by top-brass and thus the camels service as a fighter become less and less prominent as the war progressed. Thus the poor thing is left out in the cold by me and did not make it to my list…

As for the Caproni 5 - I’ve never heard of that one until it was mentioned it here. It shows very well how much I know about these things… Especially regarding planes that were not German, English or French-made…

A fine list you have there Ethelred! I’m curious, why the FE2b? Why not a Gotha-bomber or an Airco DH2 fighter? After all, both are pushers!?! Explain, explain, explain! Or at least find some excuse to post some more here! At any rate, the idea of some sort of additional commentary or remarks for the plane-list was just an excellent idea and I decided to copy you on that, see for yourself how I ended up in my original post! I totally blame you for it! :laugh4:

- Cheers

A Very Super Market

05-01-2009, 23:58

Heh, sorry I didn't read it properly.

Ethelred Unread

05-02-2009, 09:47

A fine list you have there Ethelred! I’m curious, why the FE2b? Why not a Gotha-bomber or an Airco DH2 fighter? After all, both are pushers!?! Explain, explain, explain! Or at least find some excuse to post some more here! At any rate, the idea of some sort of additional commentary or remarks for the plane-list was just an excellent idea and I decided to copy you on that, see for yourself how I ended up in my original post! I totally blame you for it! :laugh4:

The DH2 had the best nickname given by any pilot to an operational plane - the "Spinning Incinerator", but as the FE2b came in later in the war and helped end the Fokker Scourge I prefer it. Richtofen was also wounded by fighting an FE2b and they could also form a flying "cantabrian circle" where each plane covered the others blind spots. The genuises at Farman also came up with the idea of making a telescopic lewis MG mount on the top plane so the observer had to lift his lewis gun, place it on the rear mount, stand facing backwards and fire, all whilst the pilot was doing manouevers, and the pilots still thought it was an alright aircraft. :dizzy2:

rotorgun

05-07-2009, 01:32

I have always thought that the best all around mainstay fighter of the war for Germany was the Albatross DIII. It was the plane that won Von Richthofen something like 22 of his many victories-more than any other type he flew I think. The German pilot's respected it, despite it's limitations for it's toughness, and the fact that it had 2 machine guns at a time when some allied fighters still had only one. It was a feared opponent by many a French or British aircrew.

The attachment shows an Albatross DIII flown by Ernst Udet, another famous WWI ace who is one of my favorite of the German aces. My all-time favorite is Werner Voss, perhaps the best pilot of the entire war, who I think would have surpassed Von Richthofen had he survived his last dogfight with no less than five to eight SE-5s. He put rounds into each of those aircraft before the RFC pilots managed to draw a bead on his twisting DR-1 Triplane.

bamff

05-07-2009, 06:25

The Albatros was also largely responsible for the carnage of "Bloody April" in 1917 (?) wasn't it?

For mine, this aircraft's beautiful shark like lines always made it a favourite. I suppose the Pfalz scouts also had similar lines (although a funnier looking tail).

Another favourite was the Airco DH5 - really only because of the distinctive "reverse stagger" of its wings. It did not perform very well in service, and I gather that the few produced were quickly withdrawn to be sent to training schools or sold to Commonwealth air arms such as our Australian Flying Corps.

https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r32/bamffofbrissie/dh_profile-3.jpg

Axalon

05-07-2009, 14:31

The Albatros was also largely responsible for the carnage of "Bloody April" in 1917 (?) wasn't it?

Yep I think it's pretty accurate, once the D.III's got reliable enough (structural weaknesses in the initial release they say, D.II appeares to have been more dependable in that regard) they really shook up the allies real bad. Bloody april 1917, was pretty much due to the combined superiority of the D.III to most allied planes at the time and new german air-tactics. Richthofen also got his jagdgeschwader to toy around with, and the allies was caught completly unprepared for the onslaught that was spearheaded by the "flying circus" that month. I think von Richthofen got over 30 kills in that month alone! Probably no other did ever manage to do that deed again during the entire war.

I also think that "bloody april" marked the end of the "Boelcke-era" and it was the grand opening of the "von Richthofen-era" in its place until that was ended by his death in april 1918. At any rate, it was during bloody april that von Richterhofen finally managed to get more confirmed kills than Boelcke.

Anyway, more comments or lists? Keep 'em comin.... :grin:

- Cheers

hoom

05-08-2009, 13:32

I like the F.2B.
Not intended as a fighter but in combat it was found to be maneuvrable enough to be used as one, plus it had the machine gun on the back.

rotorgun

05-10-2009, 01:28

The references made to "Bloody April" prompted me to look into the Allied response to the Albatross' domination. The RFC responded with the S.E.5A. This aircraft had a direct influence in aiding the RFC to regain superiority until the appearance of the Fokker DR1 and DVII machines. Even then it was a good match for both these fighters despite some inferiority in climb rates amd maneuverability. British pilots, although initially skeptical, were impressed with the ease at which it could be flown. As to its speed,
McCudden wrote of the S.E.5 "It was very fine to be in a machine that was faster than the Huns, and to know that one could run away just as things got too hot. Certainly it gave a measure of confidence that was badly needed during a time of lowered morale.

Here is a site that might interest some who would like to raed what a modern day pilot says about the performance of this legendary fighter:

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/se-5a-reproduction/flying-se5a

Ariovistus Maximus

05-14-2009, 04:19

http://website.lineone.net/~remosliema/swordfish1.jpg

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

NOOOOOOT! UGLY booger! Did you know that FW190 had to CUT THROTTLE and extend flaps to slow down enough just to shoot at this thing?!?!?

Oooh another fav.:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ToFly/ca60_1.jpg

~:shock: Caproni Ca-60

OK OK ITS HORRIFIC! But its still quite notable...

Hey, how many of you guys do models? My brother and I have tons of these... stacks of doom. :laugh4:

EDIT
Woah; am I exceeding the guidlines for images and stuff? I dunno, but if I am I can take some off...

King Kurt

05-15-2009, 09:12

A picture of a Swordfish over the Isle of Wight - - My idea of Heaven - I live about 5 miles away from the headland behind the plane.:2thumbsup:

PanzerJaeger

05-16-2009, 05:22

[IMG]
NOOOOOOT! UGLY booger! Did you know that FW190 had to CUT THROTTLE and extend flaps to slow down enough just to shoot at this thing?!?!?

Wow, I did not know the Brits were still operating those by the time the 190 was introduced. I'd love to read about that encounter, any links?

Axalon

05-16-2009, 06:53

Hi guys, you are wandering astray here….

The framework for this thread is WWI-aircraft so, while the pics looks nice, I would prefer if you, Ariovistus Maximus, could edit in some aircraft (of your choosing) within the relevant timeframe of this thread instead and that did serve during WWI (I did like the 1921 Caproni Ca.60-monster although. Also, as a general rule try to avoid pics wider than 800 pixels so things can work smoothly around here. You asked and now you have an answer). This note goes also to you other guys as well – stay on target/topic please. :wink2:

To avoid further misunderstandings about the framework of this thread I have sent a PM to both CBR and Kraxis with a request to change the titles for it (who ever manages to get it fixed first), so it will be easier to stay on topic for all here. Little harm done so far. Sorry to be a pest guys….

- Cheers
-------------
If you replaced the Swordfish with a Fokker DR1 or a Neiuport 17 – you got
yourself a new customer to bliss, King Kurt! :mickey:

HopAlongBunny

05-16-2009, 07:29

WWI for cool you can't beat the Fokker Dr.1; just looks so amazing. Sopwith Camel-just because Snoopy flew one against his nemesis: "Curse you Red Baron!" Bristol F.2b: 2 seater with the handling of a fighter; guns in front, gun(s) in back, tough as nails...what's not to love? Spad VII & Spad XIII fast and incredibly tough...easy to fly too, huge consideration in a war machine. Last but not least the Fokker DVII: of all the fighters that made it into the war in numbers, probably the best.

Tristuskhan

05-16-2009, 10:38

Wow, I did not know the Brits were still operating those by the time the 190 was introduced. I'd love to read about that encounter, any links?

Operation Cerberus (Channel Dash).

CBR

05-16-2009, 13:35

Title has been changed as requested :bow:

Beirut

05-16-2009, 22:04

There really is only one. :sunny:

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A5465/54659/300_54659.jpg

Ariovistus Maximus

05-18-2009, 21:51

Wow, I did not know the Brits were still operating those by the time the 190 was introduced. I'd love to read about that encounter, any links?

Sorry man; it was awhile b4 I realized that the .org was back up. :thumsup:

Yes, the swordfish was used in WWII, including the quite noted battle of taranto where a squadron of swordfisheys sunk a cruiser and heavily damaged a battleship and a cruiser. Or maybe it was battleship-cruiser-cruiser. Or something. :laugh4:

And swordfish also attacked the Bismarck.

here is some discussion on speed:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/question-speed-swordfish-7041.html

and here's good ol' wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

hmm. to my surprise, the swordfish was designed between wars! It looks old/bad enough to have been obsolete in WWI. :laugh4:

EDIT:
Ooh, can anybody tell me how to change the size of my pics? Are there parameters that I can edit in my post, or do I have to mess with them in Adobe or something?

Caius

05-18-2009, 21:53

Woah; am I exceeding the guidlines for images and stuff? I dunno, but if I am I can take some off...
You can post them as is, you can't post those on your sig.

PanzerJaeger

05-19-2009, 00:20

Sorry man; it was awhile b4 I realized that the .org was back up. :thumsup:

Yes, the swordfish was used in WWII, including the quite noted battle of taranto where a squadron of swordfisheys sunk a cruiser and heavily damaged a battleship and a cruiser. Or maybe it was battleship-cruiser-cruiser. Or something. :laugh4:

And swordfish also attacked the Bismarck.

here is some discussion on speed:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/question-speed-swordfish-7041.html

and here's good ol' wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

hmm. to my surprise, the swordfish was designed between wars! It looks old/bad enough to have been obsolete in WWI. :laugh4:

Indeed I was aware that the Swordfish was used against the Italians and the Bismarck with (unexpectedly high levels of?) success. For some reason I was under the impression that the Channel Dash was earlier than '42, and I did not know the 'Fish came up against the 190. At that point in the war, using that thing in any operational capacity besides anti-sub, especially where it would most certainly come up against interceptors, was pure negligence. :inquisitive:

Thanks for the info. :2thumbsup:

Axalon

05-20-2009, 02:09

Hey! What the hell is the matter with you guys?!!

PanzerJaeger, Ariovistus Maximus and Tristuskhan.

Which part of: “Stay on topic”….

Didn’t you understand?!?

I have three times, in three separate posts (including the first one, bolded each and every time), pointed that this thread is about WWI-planes! This was apparently was not good enough for you.

I have had the title of this thread changed to “your favorite WWI-planes” so there could not possibly be any further misunderstandings about the actual topic of this thread. Still this was not good enough for you!

I explicitly requested in a friendly and courteous manner that you and all others would stay on topic while posting here. Yet still that was not good enough for you!

Now, I have been more than patient with you here. Your continuant and blatant disregard for each and every effort I made to make you respect the obvious framework of this thread is nothing short of an unbothered insult to me personally, and any fool could see it! The fact that you have finally managed to force me to resort to these harsher, non-gentler methods of making things clear for you is an insult enough as is.

I have had it with your blatant; Arrogant, ignorant, disrespectful and rude manner here! Not only just towards me personally, but to all who are actually interested in the topic of this thread! I am thru with you and your crappy attitude! It ends right here! And don’t bother to post any lame and sorry excuses either and because there are none!

I will have none of it and I will not put up with your crappy behavior any longer! If you a have any sense of the concept of respect, now is the time to post up a big fat public apology to me personally and all others you have pestered here with your off-topic spam and while you are at it - edit each and every post you made here to comply with the actual topic or at least erase it’s sorry contents completely. It’s either that or get the hell out of my sight and this thread – and stay out!

Is that clear!?!!!

PanzerJaeger

05-20-2009, 04:29

Usually I'm pretty good about these things, but I can't tell if you're being serious or not. :laugh4: either way, though.

CBR

05-20-2009, 04:53

This might be a case where my lack of people skills are showing but uhm I will go to bed and everything will be fine tomorrow right?

CBR

Tristuskhan

05-20-2009, 06:03

:dizzy2: see post#5, Mr Justice.

Axalon

05-20-2009, 14:40

PanzerJaeger: You really don’t have a clue do you?

Read previous post again and if you still don’t understand, just stay away from this thread because then it clearly is not for you - not because I said so, but considering your own personal capabilities and limitations. Accept and respect these as they are. It is nothing personal but it is kind of a requirement that you can tell the difference between WWI and WWII in this thread. You apparently are not capable of doing such a distinction – and I assumed that you could. Your actions here however, clearly show that I was wrong and that I can not expect such a thing from you.

Just be on your merry way and leave this thread alone to those who can make such distinctions, because it is pretty much a prerequisite for posting in this thread. No hard feelings, this thread is simply not for you.

Thus our business is concluded.

=======================
Tristuskhan: I can expect more of you however…. I repeat: Which part of: “Stay on topic”…. didn’t you understand?

The way I see it, you simply chose to ignore my request to keep things topical and pretty much right under the very post that that contained that request – so there is no a chance that you could have missed it, after all you did refer to a post above it…. Add to that, you had already shown that you knew very well what the topic was (your post:5 proves this), still you chose to just ignore my request and the previous efforts to keep things topical. I can only categorize such behavior as plain rude and disrespectful. You didn’t even attach an apology for your off-topic posting – If you had I probably would have not included your name in my previous post here.

Then you would have showed that you had some manners at least – now you just ignored the fact that you posted off topic in spite off the repeated attempts I made to make people respect the obvious framework of this thread. Still you just disregarded that fact and that pretty much right under my nose… If that is not rude and disrespectful, what is?

I will not stand for such behavior, not after all I have done in this thread trying to keep it topical. After all, you clearly have an intellect that I can expect more of and you have by your own actions showed that you cared little about those previous efforts made or the explicit request to keep it topical – placed almost right above your own post. You clearly thought you could get away with such behavior. Obviously you can’t, not in the way you were hoping for at least, since we are now discussing this, right?

I repeat: which part of: “Stay on topic”… didn’t you understand?!? ….Or, are you perhaps willing to admit that you were just plain rude and arrogant? Excuses are few here so what’s it going to be?

Regardless, Tristuskhan since it is just you and me now, (for the time being at least, Ariovistus Maximus has not protested here so far I can only assume that either he has not discovered this yet or he did choose to get the hell out – time will tell). If you prefer to resolve this over PM instead by all means, we can do that - away from the public eye and all that. In such settings you are free to be as rude as you want and I can swear as much as I want. Also, I get feeling that CBR would be delighted with such an arrangement as well – in fact me too. And as a bonus, we might very well be doing some saving on infraction points by that move as well. Just send me a PM and we are in business there instead. Leaving this thread alone to deal with the stuff it was always dedicated to deal with – WWI- aircraft.

=======================
CBR: My methods might be open for discussion, but friendly and polite reminders clearly did not work here so… I simply could not just sit idly by and see them further disrupting the thread the way they already have at this point – totally disregarding the fact that I do find the displayed behavior, considering the circumstances, in effect insulting, arrogant and disrespectful towards me and others that are actually interested in the stipulated and obvious topic of this thread.

On another note; I have not had the chance to thank you for changing the title of the thread. I will do so properly, once all this are over and done with....

PanzerJaeger

05-21-2009, 01:22

Centurion1

05-21-2009, 01:59

Wow boys im feeling a little tension here. Remeber we are all here for a reason *because we dont have real lives and we just need someone to talk to* Ahem anyway, i think that you may both have a good point

Panzerjaegar: Admit defeat man and stop talking about the swordfish, look we all know it was one of the premier torpedo planes of WW2. So move the $%@# on to another plane or leave the thread (not meant to be a threat :oops:) And before you get mad at me look at my reminder to axalon

Axalon: Dude chill the $%^# out. Man, a little "off topic" discussion doesn't hurt, plus it wasn't even that off topic. Alright dude to tell you the truth its your own damn fault for mistitling this thread. So stop whining like a little &@^% and man up. I mean dude seriously you challenged a member of the .org to some sort of showdown in like the private messaging arena. I mean sheesh come on dude dont be so anal about stupid stuff. Id rather talk about the f'ing swordfish than hear how you're gonna make me cry through virtual insults.

So dudes chill out it really doesn't matter that much and you both appear juvenile.

So a little on topic i personally love the Sopwith Camel. Nothing like an early merlin brand engine to lay down the pain on the kaisers boys. :laugh4:

rotorgun

05-21-2009, 05:25

Axalon,

I'm quite sure, knowing the gentlemen involved by their many posts in other threads, that they meant no personal insult to you. Many times org. members will log in and go directly to the last post in a thread, or scan quickly through the posts to find a particular thread in response to one of their earlier post about a particular conversation they were engaged in.They may have just missed your request to change the main topic, or may have just wanted to finish out their sidebar to a logical conclusion. Panzer is correct about the form of this history thread. As fellow historians, we often involve ourselves in such slightly off topic posts as a thread develops. A gentle reminder is usually all that is needed, and if that fails, an appeal to our gracious moderator will often suffice as a better alternative to argument.

Please forgive our small indulgences in the interest of how very much we all benefit from the free exchange of information. I think I can speak for most that post in the Monastery that it is the intellectual drive to learn that brings us all together.

Come good fellows, let us reason together, shall we? :beam:

King Kurt

05-21-2009, 14:19

As the person who first mentioned the Swordfish - when the thread was called your favourite Bi-planes - I promise not to mention the "S" word again in this thread - However my new thread - "Your favorite biplane British WW2 Torpedo plane begining with S" may allow more converstaion on the plane that can not be named.

Tribesman

05-21-2009, 16:37

Wow, I did not know the Brits were still operating those by the time the 190 was introduced.
Yeah its amazing isn't it , still flying combat ops until Germany surrendered .
But what about the 123s eh ? astounding service even after they had been retired as obsolete then reintroduced , didn't that flying fella ask for the production line to be restarted long after the factories had been retooled for modern aircraft , a mighty little biplane indeed .
And as the flying fella with the thing about old biplanes was called von Richthofen it ain't off topic at all is it:2thumbsup:
And of course since the topic is biplanes of WWII we must of course mention the last confirmed air-air combat victory by a biplane ,the oft overlooked Avia 534 which shot down a JU52 in Sept 1944

Axalon

05-21-2009, 18:46

Rotorgun… What can I say?

I am a bastard! Hell, I am even a pompous bastard at times - such as this one! I am just so unaccustomed confronting people with such blatant limitations both in capacity and sense of respect. I simply expect too much out of people! And obviously, I am not used to such circumstances, thus I set the bar of expectations too high and that is my mistake. I realize that now….

It’s just that I am used to be around people being capable of understanding simple frameworks and manners to respect them, that’s all. It’s no excuse here of course, but it may better explain my reasons and actions here. So in this sense I might even be a spoiled pompous bastard as well - used to the luxury of such circumstances! I now fully understand that I can not expect such a thing around here. And, hence I fully realize that my anger was completely misplaced and pointless because it was triggered by expectations and concepts that can not be realized or even exist here. I see and understand that now….

So, I am spoiled pompous bastard that simply will have to lower the bar here – not expecting as much…. Adapt to the circumstances and customs that are valid around here. I’ll do the best I can to blend in, even if I probably will do things wrong now and then because inexperience with environments such as this one. Bear with me….

And you know, the funny thing is, or perhaps the irony of it all is that I don’t even consider myself to be particularly smart. :wink2:

Thus rotorgun, as far as I am concerned we have in effect reached the end of this little drama. That means that we now have a thread to fill with dubious yet wonderful contents of WWI-aircraft stuff at our convenience. And all the children, who can’t be expected to understand the concept of topicality or this simple framework, can from now on play here as much as they like with their off-topic contents as well! ....Some have already started it seems. :grin:

- Fair enough?

bamff

05-21-2009, 23:37

CBR

05-22-2009, 00:24

Yes stay on topic from now on please.

CBR

Tribesman

05-22-2009, 00:48

Yes stay on topic from now on please.

OK then the Avro504
:oops:can'tsay that as the RAF were still using them in the '39-45 war

rotorgun

05-22-2009, 03:08

Thus rotorgun, as far as I am concerned we have in effect reached the end of this little drama. That means that we now have a thread to fill with dubious yet wonderful contents of WWI-aircraft stuff at our convenience. And all the children, who can’t be expected to understand the concept of topicality or this simple framework, can from now on play here as much as they like with their off-topic contents as well! ....Some have already started it seems.

- Fair enough?(Axalon)

Don't sweat it ole' boy. I make no judgments. There is room for all, even pompous so and so's. The best place to indulge in some smashing good arguments is in the Backroom threads in the Tavern. Just about anything goes there except blatant personal attacks or outright profanity. I am not a moderator, or any such official of the org. Just a fellow member gently explaining his own interpretation of the decorum, traditions and customs of this thread.

bamff, I love the great print of the Pfalz! It suffered from similar structural defects of the Albatross series, but was a great fighter for sure. Do you know anything about the paint scheme, such as which pilot flew this particular machine, or what Jasta it was from?

Let me amend that bit about similar defects.

Deliveries to operational units began in August 1917. Jasta 10 was the first recipient of the new aircraft, followed by Jasta 4. While markedly better than the earlier Roland designs, the D.III was generally considered inferior to the Albatros D.III and D.V. German pilots variously criticized the Pfalz’s heavy controls, low speed, lack of power, or low rate of climb compared to the Albatros.[5][8][9] The D.III slipped in turns, leading to crashes when unwary pilots turned at very low altitudes.[5][10] Moreover, the Pfalz stalled sharply and spun readily. Recovery from the resulting flat spin was difficult, though some pilots took advantage of this trait to descend quickly or evade enemy aircraft.[11]

The Pfalz’s primary advantage was its strength and sturdiness. The Albatros scouts were plagued by failure of their single-spar lower wings.[12] The Pfalz, however, could safely dive at high speeds due to its twin-spar lower wing.[3][13] For this reason, the Pfalz was well-suited to diving attacks on observation balloons, which were usually heavily defended by anti-aircraft guns trained to the balloon's altitude.[14](Wikipedia)

bamff

05-22-2009, 05:37

bamff, I love the great print of the Pfalz! It suffered from similar structural defects of the Albatross series, but was a great fighter for sure. Do you know anything about the paint scheme, such as which pilot flew this particular machine, or what Jasta it was from?

Apologies, rotorgun, but alas I cannot....I have seen this print on several websites, but on none is such information provided.

Something that struck me about the various "fave-raves" mentioned here - they are almost exclusively biplanes. No surprise really given the dominance of biplane designs in the WWI skies. A couple of triplanes have got a jersey (Fokker Dr.I & Sopwith Triplane....gee the sopwith design team must have burned the midnight oil for that model name!), but no monoplanes - and there were a few. Mind you, nobody mentioned airships/Zeppelins either, I suppose...

Okay, on reflection, the monoplanes were largely so ugly that only their designers could love 'em, and Zeppelins are just not sexy at all (well not to me anyway...I suppose that if you like things that are large and ponderous that is entirely up to you).

As for other triplanes though, there were soome nice looking planes about. There was the Pfalz Dr.I (okay, so early in life I was reading a Biggles book, and was intrigued by the name...it's not a fixation or anything, okay?), Nieuport also had a triplane that saw service (I believe), and i think that Albatros also produced one that competed (and lost) against the Fokker Dr.I in a service trial. Actually the Pfalz also lost out in that trial, I think, but it did see some service (with Jasta 73??).

A close inspection of the two pics below will highlight that the Pfalz Dr.I actually started life as the Pfalz D.VIII, and then had a third wing inserted in the middle...okay, yes, that is a gross simplification, but the similarity of the two is striking.

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter1/pfalzd8/pfalzd8_baumer.jpg

Above: Pfalz D.VIII of Leutnant Paul Baumer of Jasta Boelcke

Below: Pfalz Dr.I

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter1/pfalzdri/pfalzdr1.jpg

Nice lines....

Flavius Clemens

05-22-2009, 14:14

Ummm...:inquisitive:.....back to the WW1 planes perhaps?

I mentioned Pfalz scouts earlier. I have now found a drawing of a Pfalz D.III - like I said, very similar lines to the Albatros isn't it?

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Alley/PfalzDIII.jpg

Interesting. The top wing is so close to the cockpit - what was pilot visibility like? It looks like he'd hardly be able to see forward.

rotorgun

05-22-2009, 21:55

I found this book, Pfalz Scout Aces of World War 1 By Greg VanWyngarden with a google search. The preview looks great, with some interesting text and some great prints. Apparantly, it was had outstanding dive charachteristics which German pilots would use to their advantage. This was especially true if needing to escape form some of the better allied fighters. Look it up guys. It would make a great addition to the library for sure.

PS: It did have a tendency to slip badly in a turn, which means a good deal of loss of altutude while in a turning maneuver, as well as a tendency to stall and get into a spin. This was a characteristic common to all WWI aircraft, but some designs were more prone than others.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-23-2009, 05:56

Wow, I did not know the Brits were still operating those by the time the 190 was introduced. I'd love to read about that encounter, any links?

During the channel run by Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, and Eugen -- the Brits scrambled everything to try to stop them, including the "stringbags."

Seamus Fermanagh

05-23-2009, 06:08

Siemens Schuckert (though it was a late entrant and saw little action)

Also like the Bristol F2b, nearly as manueverable as the best single seaters and devestating firepower both ways.

After that, there's almost too many to mention. Dolphin for sheer firepower, Snipe for rotary performance, Pfalz d3 series for boom and zoom, Junkers for all metal construction....

Hanriot D1 -- any plane that could land ON a barage balloon -- even by accident -- had to have something going for it.

Balloon busting -- no other air war had anything like it.

I've always had a lot of interest in this time frame and the early air wars -- what a cast of characters and what cojones.

One of the AH designers who put together their Red Baron boardgame when I was a kid went out to Bealeton Virginia to fly in some WW1 birds to get a feel for it. When he landed, he is said to have blurted out "...and they FOUGHT each other in those things!"

Says it all.

Pannonian

05-23-2009, 06:29

Has to be the Sopwith Camel, as the background to this exchange.

Lord Flashheart: All right men, let's do-oo-oo it! The first thing to remember is: always treat your kite
[Flashheart taps the picture of the Sopwith Camel with his stick]
Lord Flashheart: like you treat your woman!
[Flashheart whips the air with his cane]
Lieutenant George: How, how do you mean, Sir? Do you mean, do you mean take her home at weekends to meet your mother?
Lord Flashheart: No, I mean get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back.
Captain Blackadder: I'm beginning to see why the suffragette movement want the vote.
Lord Flashheart: Hey! Any bird who wants to chain herself to *my* railings [points to his groin] and suffer a jet movement [thrusts with his groin] gets *my* vote!

Axalon

05-23-2009, 16:52

First of all, a long overdue thanks to CBR who kindly enough changed the title for this thread – just make things smoother for all. None of this should have been necessary if everybody bothered to read post:1, but apparently a small group of people simply refused to do that, or to acknowledge anything that was stipulated there…. Don’t ask me why, I have no clue as for why, they just simply did…. :shrug:

Thus the thread-title had to be changed because of these circumstances and this was done by CBR upon my request. Again, my thanks… :bow:

================================

Hi and plenty of excellent posts so far guys…. :beam:

Flavius Clemens: Yeah, I agree with you. It must have been pretty poor visibility (which strikes me as critical), especially with that engine and also the position of the lower wing strikes me as unfortunate in that regard. Imagine you constantly being blind on a critical spot while the plane twist and turn in a dogfight (that is, if more than one foe are swirling about of course)...

Bamff: I’ll pick up were you left off (love the pics BTW).... Let’s not forget Ethelreds Fokker eindekker, thus the monoplane actually have had some modest representation among peoples favorites here – however, if I understand him correctly, looks had little to do with it. Otherwise I think you are quite right and I am totally with you on the monoplane unsexyness-factor! A quick look at the Fokker D.VIII and it kind of says it all. Sexyness is important! :laugh4:

As for the Zeppelins, well they don’t strike me as planes and I guess that others have reasoned along such lines as well and thus we have had no entries on ‘em so far. The way I see it, airship is something apart and different from airplane – since the means of flight are different, obviously. But technically I think you are right, both are to be considered as aircraft. Thus they could possibly be considered eligible for the various fave-lists as well around here. Does this make any sense?

As both we pointed out here, most planes were biplanes and it is perhaps because of that fact that I personally find triplanes as cool and exotic. The Fokker-version no doubt is the most famous of them all, followed by the wartime-original, the Sopwith triplane. I think you did a great call on spotlighting some of their fairly unknown cousins (it even appears that some in experimental stage Albatross DR.1 was considered, but since it never served, its just a curiosity around here.)…

The Pfalz DR.1 had a stronger engine and were a slightly faster which makes me suspect that it also had different performance traits as well – the wings and fuselage are obviously different as well so.... And apparently it did arrive later than the Fokker DR.1 to the fronlines. “Mama” says (read the Aerodrome (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/germany/pfalz_dri.php)) that the Pfalz DR.1 did serve in jasta 73 but apparently nowhere else. So, I think you are spot on with jasta 73.

Further notes on triplanes... (in spoiler...)

I personally think that, as far as the Germans go, due to the initial structural weaknesses of the Fokker DR.1 it was deemed to be fairly dangerous to fly. Perhaps the most famous accident of them all was to the tragic take off which led to the death of balloon-buster and German ace, Heinrich Gontermann (39 confirmed kills). And, this hardly was the only accident that this triplane had. The Fokker DR.1 simply fell out of grace after that with many pilots (regardless what we think of the DR.1 around here). And, this happened early on, in September 1917 while they were still deploying the Fokkers to various jastas and thus the arrival of the Pfalz DR.1 had a pretty poor timing. Perhaps it was only deployed because of the problems with the Fokker DR.1. Who knows? Few were built and in general support for it was weak, and obviously it could not have been that superior to the Fokker counterpart because then it would have seen wider use in due course, it didn’t.

Manfred von Richthofen seems to have already turned the Pfalz DR.1 down during the previous test-trials competition earlier that year in favor of the Fokker DR.1, and hence it had far less favorable terms to work with than the Fokker counterpart. Actually he had sneered at the Fokker DR.1 as well, even earlier on, but after some improvements and adjustments were made and von Richthofens were pleased with it. His recommendations were probably what decided these trials....

Another funny and related thing is that the German top-brass seemed to listen and care about what their favorite pilot, von Richthofen, thought on various things in a whole other way than the allied counterparts ever did with their top pilots (General Ludendorff apparently was kind of a von Richthofen fan it seems). And it was hardly new either, Oswald Boelcke before him, was treated and listened too in the very same fashion – while allied command seems to have been pretty deaf in comparison to their “star-pilots”.

The constant and static doctrine of “taking the war to them” by Lord Trenchard, as in constantly patrolling “over the line” had very little to do with what was viable or practical if you guys ask me. Yet it seems that it was never really questioned or revised – regardless how insane it was in a practical sense for the airmen that were ordered to realize these aggressive doctrines. Anyhow, none seems to have been treated with the same respect and consideration on the allied side in spite of the fact that they had pilots of their own in similar capacities, Albert Ball (GB) or Georges Guynemer (FRA) for instance...

- Cheers

Ariovistus Maximus

05-28-2009, 03:57

rotorgun

05-28-2009, 06:00

OK have been gone for a little while...

(1.) Have fixed my 1st post w/ the big pics.

(2.) Most sincere apologies to Axalon and Co. I'm guilty of rotorgun's observation; reading the 1st post, getting all excited, posting stuff... but yes I should have just sent PanzerJ a PM w/ the info instead of polluting your thread. No personal affront intended.

:bow:

What do you guys think? Was the Fokker Eindecker as influential in aircraft design as they say? How did it affect later design?

First of all, let me say that's the stuff old man! I am very gratified to see us all "bury the hatchet" and make Axalon feel welcome. I am sure that he's really a nice guy, who was just having a bad hair day. Don't we all?

Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4290914.html claims the Eindecker as one of the six most deadly aircraft in history. The technology of the synchronized machine gun, mounted on a reliable and steady gun platform, quite fast and maneuverable in relative terms, was a quantum leap in aerial warfare. It placed all other contenders in the category of "showing up to a gun fight with a knife." There is a note of true fear in the words The Fokker Scourge.

Axalon

06-01-2009, 22:50

Ariovistus Maximus….

I’ll be plain and straight here… I think it is good that you apologize here and I do appreciate it. It also shows strength and some sense of the concept of respect in you. Do try to avoid such mistakes in the future by learning something out of these mistakes made here (we all do ‘em, so you are hardly alone). Let’s put it behind us and move on - now on a happier and friendlier note…. Thus, you and I are good. :mickey:

Another thing that is great about this is that it shows that I am not completely insane and that my sense of the concept of respect and manners are not imported out of Mars (regardless if I had a bad day at the time or not) - which is kind of a relief…

Do continue this thread; I’ll try to post here when I have more time for it,
maybe I’ll even post something on the Fokker Eindekker….

- Cheers

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 04:51

Thanks Axalon! I just wanted to make sure I posted so you wouldn't think I was some troll who couldn't make myself apologize and just left...

Actually, manners imported from Mars sound kinda cool... :eyebrows:

Indeed this is a very cool thread and I hope it doesn't die from a few misguided WWII enthusiasts! :laugh4:

But about the Eindekker, I mean, what made it so grand? I mean, obviously it's a monoplane. But with those flimsy wings, it was a rather crude monoplane, so musn't it have had something else (engine, structure strength) that helped it along?

rotorgun

06-04-2009, 00:43

But about the Eindecker, I mean, what made it so grand? I mean, obviously it's a monoplane. But with those flimsy wings, it was a rather crude monoplane, so mustn't it have had something else (engine, structure strength) that helped it along?

It wasn't that great a performer compared to most of the contemporary aircraft of the time of its introduction. It was faster then the French made Moraine Saulnier type L and N, as well as the Vickers F.B.5 pushers. It has similar maneuverability to the Moraine Saulnier due to the wing warping controls instead of ailerons. The British pusher types had an advantage in this, but neither aircraft matched the Eindecker's firepower. The German Spandau LMG 08 had a 900 RPM rate of fire compared to the Vickers Lewis gun's 550-600 RPM. Of course the sustained rates would have been lower for the Lewis armed F.B.5 because the need to change magazines more often. For the French aircraft even lower due to its having to fire through deflector plates.

I think it was also the better tactics of the German aircrews, influenced as they were by the likes of Max Immelmann and Oswald Boelcke, especially the later. The development of teamwork, and the codification of fighter tactics by Boelcke allowed Germany's pilots to take advantage of there technical edge. Until the allies could introduce better aircraft and tactics in 1916, the Fokkers did considerable execution to allied aircraft.