









|
| Aircraft Topics related to WWI aircraft, aircraft engines and armament |
18 January 2006, 03:05 PM
|
#1
|
|
Guest
|
The Fastest Fighter in WWI
I have read at various places that either the Spad XIII or the SE5a were the fastest fighter of that period.
Anyone have any opinions?
|
|
|
|
18 January 2006, 04:24 PM
|
#2
|
|
Observer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nyc, ny
Posts: 70
|
The Spad is the faster plane, though its flight characteristics were least to be desired (high stall speed, thin wings with low lift, etc...). The SE5a was a more forgiving aircraft, though some pilots hated it.
Stats on the Spad XIII
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft...spad_xiii.html
Stats on the SE5a
http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft...n/raf_se5.html
__________________
Average a sum of 181 kills on Red Baron Simulation... Dont ask how many time I been killed!
|
|
|
18 January 2006, 06:10 PM
|
#3
|
|
Forum Ace of Aces
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 3,241
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfen
|
The Germans had one almost as fast... in 1915!
The Junkers JII (EI was the military designation I THINK, might have been EII)
Brad
__________________
Brad
No war for environmentalists! Drill here!
"My point is that KILLING BABIES ON PURPOSE IS NEVER OKAY. " - Craig
"Not even before they are born! " - ME
"Is nailing Jell-O to the wall productive?" - Barker
|
|
|
18 January 2006, 06:31 PM
|
#4
|
|
Observer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 49
|
Italian!
The Savoia-Verduzio-Ansaldo (SVA)5 was rather quick: 143 mh when everything worked right (as can be said for all the machines of that period). This was at sea-level. But the endurance! Four hours!!
Fly laughing!
Tedders
|
|
|
18 January 2006, 07:37 PM
|
#5
|
|
Guest
|
Hard to answer that question as, speed is not absolute, it is contextual to the altitude it is rated at, in addition to any reporting errors or measuring instrument innacuracies.
For example, the Bristol M1c did 130 mph in 1916, at sea level. However, speed fell off rapidly at higher altitude due to the rotary engine.
F=MA
|
|
|
|
21 January 2006, 04:14 PM
|
#6
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,681
|
Monoplanes should have the edge as is illustrated by the Bristol M1c being capable of 130 mph in 1916-1917. The surprise, even having regard to the difference in engine power, is the D V111 which was not only a monoplane but considerably lighter than the D V11 yet slower. l
__________________
Honorary Consultant on Policy and Ethics
On a Holy Purpose
The absolute self-appointed authority
Too myopic to comprehend
Fools and cowards
Foolish do-gooder, you aid and abett (sic) the devil
Such a crotchety old man
|
|
|
21 January 2006, 04:54 PM
|
#7
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 565
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brad
The Germans had one almost as fast... in 1915!
The Junkers JII (EI was the military designation I THINK, might have been EII)
Brad
|
The British had one (and only one) in June 1914!
The SE4. Top speed: 135mph...Fastest plane in the world at the time!
Regards.
Bucky.
Last edited by Southside Bucky; 21 January 2006 at 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
21 January 2006, 05:36 PM
|
#8
|
|
Guest
|
No surprise the D VIII was a slug. It didn't get a powerplant even worth mentioning. You can't go fast w/o horsepower. It's all about power to weight baby, more wings need more power but less power kills any wing configuration.
F=MA
|
|
|
|
21 January 2006, 07:08 PM
|
#9
|
|
Forum Ace
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,738
|
F=MA- The D.VII with the BMW engine had 185 hp at sea level and 260 hp at altitude and was more than a match for any allied fighter. The thick wing profile Fokker learned from Junkers generated more lift and less drag than contemporary thin winged designs. The lack of bracing wires also gave it an advantage in drag. That is a few of the reasons why the D.VII ended up with more victories than any other WW-I figher and why it was the only aircraft required to be turned in in totality after the war. The overcompressed Mercedes engined models did just fine, also, for the same reasons.
Taz
Terry Phillips
|
|
|
22 January 2006, 07:25 AM
|
#10
|
|
Guest
|
D VIII as in D "8", Taz. That girl got a similar rotary salad spinner to the DR.1., a little out of touch by 1918, I'd say.
F=MA
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 PM.
|