DR 1 VS SE5a

[Guest British_eh]

The setting is somewhere near the Front, June 1918, at an elevation of 1200 ft in a DR1. Climbing pitch is ~22 degrees, at a speed of ~ 62 MPH. The SE5a is behind, some 1200 yards, at an elevation of 400 ft. The German airbase is 3 miles away. Can you climb away to escape the two SE's chasing you? I would have thought yes, given the superior climbing characteristics that the DR1 possessed. One mile from the base at a distance of 484 yards the SE's opened fire. The rest is history. So the next question is should the DR1 have been able to escape? Given known abilities of both craft, I would expect the German to have been able to escape, which leads to another question. Is there any escape from the AI in the craft that should be able to outclimb their adversaries?

 

Just pondering the flight characteristics of the DR1. Has there been mods to it since P2?

 

Regards,

 

British_eh

[Gremlin_WoH 0]

The setting is somewhere near the Front, June 1918, at an elevation of 1200 ft in a DR1. Climbing pitch is ~22 degrees, at a speed of ~ 62 MPH. The SE5a is behind, some 1200 yards, at an elevation of 400 ft. The German airbase is 3 miles away. Can you climb away to escape the two SE's chasing you? I would have thought yes, given the superior climbing characteristics that the DR1 possessed. One mile from the base at a distance of 484 yards the SE's opened fire. The rest is history. So the next question is should the DR1 have been able to escape? Given known abilities of both craft, I would expect the German to have been able to escape, which leads to another question. Is there any escape from the AI in the craft that should be able to outclimb their adversaries?

 

Just pondering the flight characteristics of the DR1. Has there been mods to it since P2?

 

Regards,

 

British_eh

 

Normally you should be able to climb away. What I do is to get sure no one catches me thus I perform a climbing turn with the Dr.I. But that's me with years of practice with the AFM Dr.I in Red Baron 3D No AI can follow that. The only possibility for the enemy to catch me is to extend (still climbing) and come back. But as soon as the enemy extends I follow him (being higher) and pepper him with Kaiser Wilhelm's blue beans. As soon as he turns around not liking what I do I perform the climbing turn again and present him a bad target to aim at. O.K. this was some example of Uncle Gremlin's Magic Tricks Box.

 

What could have been in your case is that your angle was too steep and climbing performance was not optimal. You probably missed the sweet spot. 62 mph is 100 km/h. In my opinion the sweet spot should be at a higher airspeed something around 110 - 120 km/h => 78 -74 mph. Damn, you British people should just drop those damn miles per hour and stick to the international standards

 

Cheers

[Olham 164]

The S.E.5a was 37 km/h faster than the Dr.1

Within 6 minutes, the climb would be:

S.E.5a: 1.200 Meter

Dr.1: 2.000 Meter

(At lower altitudes - data like these are never bulletproof)

 

You can only escape by climbing away; and Gremlin's trick seems perfect - spiraling up,

the agile Dr.1 won't loose much climb, if any.

The S.E.5a should find that much harder to do - and can't aim or hit you.

[tttiger 0]

First, I believe the range you see on your screen is in feet, not yards. So what you term "484 yards" really is 484 feet or about 160 yards at which the SE opened fire.

 

Those numbers always confuse me because the view in my monitor never is as good as what I know it should be in real life (which is why I don't apologize for using labels). But 484 yards is over a half mile and you wouldn't hit anything with a machine gun mounted on a wood airplane at that range. Even a sniper rifle would be doubtful from a bobbing airplane at that distance.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

Anyway (back on topic):

 

Do a Google search for "DR1 SE5a rate of climb" or visit The Aerodrome web site forum and you will find a huge amount of information and discussion on this topic, Much of it centered around Voss's last fight with 56 Sqdn and whether he could have escaped by climbing away.

 

The consensus seems to be that, while a DR1 may initially (and briefly) have a better rate of climb (it had a low stall speed and very high climb angle but it didn't have much power) than an SE5a, the SE was an excellent climber and VERY fast and over a long ascending pursuit would overtake the DR1, which was slow and not a particularly good climber.

 

So, no, Voss could not have escaped by climbing away because the SE5as would have overtaken him in a long chase.

 

And neither would you

 

In fact, your climb angle of 22 degrees was steeper than the optimal 19-degree climb angle of a real DR1, which may have slowed you down even more. But that depends on the accuracy of the sim.

 

Here's a very interesting study entitled "Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter

Aircraft from WWI"

 

http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf

 

A couple of excerpts:

 

"The second anomaly is the Fokker Dr.1,

which has a reputation for superior climb and

maneuverability. "[it] climbed like a monkey and

maneuvered like the devil:” Manfred von Richthofen.

The figures show that while the Dr.1 was superior in

turn, it was poor in climb, relative to contemporary

fighters. It is possible that Richtofen’s opinion of the

Dr.1’s climb was due to its 19 degree climb angle

which was 20% greater than the airplane he had

flown previously, the Albatros D.III.

It is also worth noting that the Dr.1 had a

fairly low stall speed. The thick airfoil section used

gave it a lower stall and thus a greater climb angle

and turn rate."

 

and

 

"The Dr.1 clearly

excels in maneuvering but could not compete with its

contemporaries in terms of speed and climb. Perhaps

it is telling that only about 300 were built compared

to the thousands of D.VII’s and Sopwith Camels."

 

I'm no engineer and I can't vouch for the validity of this study but it seems credible to me.

 

So, yeah, in your scenario, the climbing SE5a properly overtook the climbing DR1.

 

Hope that helps. Look up some of the Aerodrome forum debates on this topic. No one can give an absolutely definitive answer in terms of feet per second because the data simply isn't available for WWI fighters in the manner it was for WWII fighters, which were tested extensively (and folks even debate those tests).

 

ttt

Edited April 5, 2009 by tttiger

[tttiger 0]

Some additional data and discussion on WWI fighters from NASA:

 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch2-2.htm

 

ttt

[catch 81]

A couple of excerpts:

 

"The second anomaly is the Fokker Dr.1,

which has a reputation for superior climb and

maneuverability. "[it] climbed like a monkey and

maneuvered like the devil:” Manfred von Richthofen.

The figures show that while the Dr.1 was superior in

turn, it was poor in climb, relative to contemporary

fighters. It is possible that Richtofen’s opinion of the

Dr.1’s climb was due to its 19 degree climb angle

which was 20% greater than the airplane he had

flown previously, the Albatros D.III.

It is also worth noting that the Dr.1 had a

fairly low stall speed. The thick airfoil section used

gave it a lower stall and thus a greater climb angle

and turn rate."

 

and

 

"The Dr.1 clearly

excels in maneuvering but could not compete with its

contemporaries in terms of speed and climb. Perhaps

it is telling that only about 300 were built compared

to the thousands of D.VII’s and Sopwith Camels."

 

I'm no engineer and I can't vouch for the validity of this study but it seems credible to me.

 

So, yeah, in your scenario, the climbing SE5a properly overtook the climbing DR1.

 

Hope that helps. Look up some of the Aerodrome forum debates on this topic. No one can give an absolutely definitive answer in terms of feet per second because the data simply isn't available for WWI fighters in the manner it was for WWII fighters, which were tested extensively (and folks even debate those tests).

 

ttt

 

I agree with you tiger .... I think the so called "legendary" status of the DR1 has messed with peoples heads who talk about it in some kind of mesmeric weirdo trance.

 

Like wow, it must be good because ....

 

a) Richtofen died in it

b) it's soooooo cute

c) Snoopy cursed it

d) WW1 movies continue to propagate the legend (give up, it doesn't put bums on seats)

 

In 1918, it was a crappy little underpowered structurally flawed aeroplane promoted and sold by possibly one of the greatest Aviation con artists of the period. And the Germans bought it ! Silly sausages.

[Fortiesboy 3]

First, I believe the range you see on your screen is in feet, not yards. So what you term "484 yards" really is 484 feet or about 160 yards at which the SE opened fire.

 

Don't really know on this. It was subject of discussion by the devs as to which it was, but I didn't see what was concluded. Anyway, this distance, whether feet or yards, as it used to be, was about 1000, and was felt by some, including me, to be extremely unrealistic, hence the option in Workshops to have the AI opening fire only when closer- to me, more realistic.

 

Those numbers always confuse me because the view in my monitor never is as good as what I know it should be in real life (which is why I don't apologize for using labels). But 484 yards is over a half mile and you wouldn't hit anything with a machine gun mounted on a wood airplane at that range. Even a sniper rifle would be doubtful from a bobbing airplane at that distance.

 

The labels discussion is, of course, one of personal preference. Some, as you do , say it makes up for the restrictions imposed by the monitor etc , others say it really kills immersion and gives an unfair advantage ( can still see the labels of the enemy thru the wings of your Camel - try to stay with him in that plane without labels )

 

Whatever floats your boat, as they say

But I wouldn't want anyone using labels to tell me this sim is too easy-lol.

It's a completely different ball game without labels.

[Olham 164]

Good stuff, Tttiger, you found there; I remember I had seen the first bit in the old forum.

I shouldn't have jumped in with my data. What we do here sometimes, is defending the

planes we like, against negative criticism. At least I feel I'm doing so sometimes, and off

course, that's pretty useless.

Sure the Dr.1 was an outstanding plane. And also sure it was much overrated by many.

 

The most important points in all air combat of that times surely were:

- how good did each pilot involved, know the strengths and the weaknesses of his plane?

- how much control could he retain about himself, the situations, and the plane?

- how good or bad were the conditions of each plane and pilot at the beginning of the fight?

 

I started a campaign with the Dr.1, and there are Camels and S.E.5a in my area (sweat - Lol!).

Now, I must find out myself, how far I can get with it...

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

i don't want to spoil the party, however in the aerodrome forum there is anything else than a consent on the Dr.I abilities. Especially Voss' decision to get involved with the 5 SE5as is alway viewed from different angles. The usual agreement is that Voss decided to take on the fight rather than just climbing away, and escape. The question coming up again and agin is why he did it.

 

The abilities of the SE5a in a dogfight are next to none, almost every other Entente scout was better in that respect, the main advantage was it was cheap to produce and easy to fly. The problem in WW1 as WW2 was not scarcity of planes, but of pilots. Everyone seemed to be instantly able to fly the stable and forgiving SE5a without much training, and it was thus the "perfect" plane for beginners, and still good enough for experienced pilots.

 

A look at the wing's profile of the SE5a instantly reveals that the SE5a only climbed well with sufficient speed. Being slow and out of energy it became hard to manoueuver and unable to climb at all.

The Dr.I is completely different, while it was not particularly slow with its 160 km/h in level flight at 2000 meters its thick wing profiles, derived from wind tunnel tests in the city of Goettingen, made it a good climber - the only backdraw here was its third wing and the struts, building up too juch drag and reducing max. airspeed.

A Fokker with this profile and better aerodynamics was the D.VII and VIII, and almost all following planes.

 

Greetings,

Catfish

[Hauksbee 103]

...Especially Voss' decision to get involved with the 5 SE5as is alway viewed from different angles...

If the History Channel's account is accurate, Voss was flying a prototype Dr.1 It would be interesting to know how many hours he had in it, but I suspect that he was still in the process of 'wringing it out' and taking the measure of what it would do. Whatever the case, it was new enough to take the British by surprise and Voss had discovered, and mastered, its flat, skidding turn.

 

So why did he fight? It would not seem that the great shoot-out was part of his plan. Until McCudden's flight stumbled upon him, Voss was having a pleasant afternoon patrol. He ran across two SE 5's and shot both down. [at least put them out of the fight] Then he got bounced by the first of McCudden's SE's. Voss is no stranger to SE's and must have known their capabilities to a fineness; must have known that a Dr.1 is not the plane in which to make a high-speed exit from a fight. What to do? Dicte Boelke: turn into the attack. And he's young, cocky, a high-scoring 'Kanone', and engaged in a friendly rivalry with von Richtofen. What's a coupl'a more SE's when you've just shot down two?

 

"[it] climbed like a monkey and maneuvered like the devil:” Manfred von Richthofen.

A powerful recommendation. It probably did. Compared to its predecessors. But everything I've read to date, says it was unstable on all three axes and difficult to fly...took a really good pilot to fly it and they liked it.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Hauksbee

[+Polovski 432]

There are various reports on it's climb rate, of course all with added questions, amoung the various figures I have seen 1200 f/m 1500 and 900 for example.

1500 was with a replica with a radial engine 165 HP so we can probably rule that out so I think 1100-1200 would be about right for the period, and to be considered generally a good climber.

Also if it was relatively slow but still climbed well that too would give the impression it was better at climbing.

[CaptSopwith 19]

I'll add in my thoughts from research I've done on the various types of WWI fighters. I don't have figures on Rate of Climb but I can offer some insight - with a grain of salt of course.

 

The argument that the Dr1 could out climb the SE5a is dependent on one thing - that the Fokker would be unassailed long enough to climb without having to turn back into the fight to defend itself. If engaged with a fast boom and zoom fighter like the SE5a, this would be hard to do, I imagine. And, if attacking superior numbers, like in the case of Werner Voss - I would say that the opportunity to disengage is nearly impossible. Could the Fokker climb faster? Let's argue that it can. So Voss has to disengage not by diving out of the fight, which would give him tremendous speed (if he was flying a scout like the Fokker D7), or even out run the SE5 (which was one of the fastest scouts of the war), he can only try to climb away. And while being shot at, this, in my honest opinion, is the least successful method for getting out of a scrap.

 

I hold the following view. The Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr1 were both excellent dogfighters if used by gifted aviators. No doubt Voss had a God-given talent with that plane to hold a half dozen SE5a's flown by experienced, gifted British pilots to a stand still. Likewise, the Sopwith Camel could outturn nearly every other fighter of the war. The problem you face as a WWI aviator is that you do not want to dogfight. A dogfight signifies that you have gotten yourself into a mess and the only way out is to kill or be killed. As a World War I pilot, the ideal way to end a fight is to assail your opponent from behind, out of the sun, and to kill him before he ever knows you're there. Hit hard, fast, and get out. Lingering in a furball only increases your chances of being killed. Disengaging then becomes of paramount importance to whatever plane your flying. And neither of these planes could really disengage - they were far too slow. Meaning if you were fighting a Fokker D7 in a Camel, you had to shoot him down. Barring that or the German leaving you be, there was no way out. In a Fokker, you were faced with the same problems if you were jumped by a flight of SE5's. Either you shot them all down - or enough of them that the rest fled - which they actually could with their aircraft - or you died. It was that simple.

 

I think we as historians get caught up about the "on paper" stats of an individual plane. This type can climb 100 feet higher at a faster rate than the other plane. The inherent problem is that these climb rates are achieved under ideal conditions - something I wouldn't call being shot at while engaged over enemy lines. On paper I think the Fokker Dr1 has some useful traits in a dogfight. But in reality? The plane is crippled by drag and a complete lack of speed. You could strap on a 1000 hp engine to the front of a Fokker Dr1, and it's not going to go any faster.

 

If you cannot disengage from a dogfight, you are piloting your own casket.

Edited April 6, 2009 by _CaptSopwith

[tttiger 0]

Hello,

 

i don't want to spoil the party, however in the aerodrome forum there is anything else than a consent on the Dr.I abilities. Especially Voss' decision to get involved with the 5 SE5as is alway viewed from different angles. The usual agreement is that Voss decided to take on the fight rather than just climbing away, and escape. The question coming up again and agin is why he did it.

 

The abilities of the SE5a in a dogfight are next to none, almost every other Entente scout was better in that respect, the main advantage was it was cheap to produce and easy to fly. The problem in WW1 as WW2 was not scarcity of planes, but of pilots. Everyone seemed to be instantly able to fly the stable and forgiving SE5a without much training, and it was thus the "perfect" plane for beginners, and still good enough for experienced pilots.

 

A look at the wing's profile of the SE5a instantly reveals that the SE5a only climbed well with sufficient speed. Being slow and out of energy it became hard to manoueuver and unable to climb at all.

The Dr.I is completely different, while it was not particularly slow with its 160 km/h in level flight at 2000 meters its thick wing profiles, derived from wind tunnel tests in the city of Goettingen, made it a good climber - the only backdraw here was its third wing and the struts, building up too juch drag and reducing max. airspeed.

A Fokker with this profile and better aerodynamics was the D.VII and VIII, and almost all following planes.

 

Greetings,

Catfish

 

You're not spoiling the party

 

But, I think there is more than a bit of "National bias" in your views. Or maybe it's just a language barrier (I wouldn't even attempt to post in a German forum).

 

First, the consensus (I think that's what you mean by "consent") of the views in the Aerodrome forums is my reading of VERY different views with no one agreeing entirely with anyone else. Your conclusion may be different. In any case, there are some lively debates (in fact many on that forum).

 

I'm not sure what you mean you say "The abilities of the SE5a in a dogfight are next to none." When I say something is "next to none" or "second to none," it means that it has no peers; it is the best.

 

If that's what you're saying, I would agree. Every top British and Commonwealth ace (except MacLaren and Collishaw, who flew Camels) was an SE5a pilot.

 

When you say: "A look at the wing's profile of the SE5a instantly reveals that the SE5a only climbed well with sufficient speed. Being slow and out of energy it became hard to manoueuver and unable to climb at all."

 

Isn't that true of EVERY fighter?

 

Perhaps you're just talking about "turn and burn" fighters. The SE5a was an "energy fighter" or a "boom and zoom" fighter. Obviously, it couldn't follow a very agile DR1 through a series of turns but it didn't need to. Once he started bleeding off energy, the pilot broke off and extended and climbed for altitude and the DR1 was left far behind. When the SE5a came back, it had a significant energy advantage while the DR1 was at a serious disadvantage.

 

The difference, of course, was wing loading. Low wing load planes (lighht engine and air frame) always turn better than high wing load (heavy engine and air frame) planes. But the high wing load planes retain energy much better, as long as the energy isn't all lost in excessive turns.

 

The Camel, a much lower wing load plane than the SE5a, turned much better than the SE5a but wasn't nearly as fast. Nor could it climb as well. Flying the Camel in several sims, I have found its worst flaw is horrible pilot visibility (situational awareness).

 

The proof probably is that only about 320 DR1s were built while more than 5,000 Camels and 5,000 SE5as were manufactured. By mid-1918 the DR1 was obsolete and with all of its structural problems it probably was doomed from the start. But, yes, it certainly was the most nimble late war "turn and burn" fighter. But that wasn't worth much.

 

Good discussion in this thread!

 

ttt

Edited April 6, 2009 by tttiger

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

first sorry for my crappy english , seems i used the wrong words ...

 

But an interesting discussion ! And Oops i meant consensus not consent (god!) , and i wanted to say that the dogfighting abilities of the SE5a were indeed bad - certainly in relation to agile rotary planes like the Nieuport, Tripe, Dr.I and the "D".VIII late-war Eindecker. For what i read from Jentsch and Udet, even the in-line motored Albatros was a better turner than the SE5. And yes, there is not one general view over at the aerodrome, of how the Dr.I flew, or better its prototype Voss was using, with a non-stock engine.

 

"But, I think there is more than a bit of "National bias" in your views."

 

National bias, hmm. I am much for letting the facts speak, as far as they are still available after almost a century of unintentional forgetting, and more-intentional propaganda. I indeed used to be more biased towards the allies, but after reading so much i realized those "allies" (so-called in WW2) were the "Entente" in WW1, and it was not so easy with the good and the bad guys in WW1. Again, not speaking of WW2 and this austrian guy and his 3rd Reich here. But in WW1 reading about England and France declaring war - just comparing the claims of "who started the war" does not match the dates at which things happened. After reading a new book about the U-boat war I wrote a lot about it in the aerodrome forum (books section).

I also read biographies about Asquith and Churchill, and quoted those two politicians with parts of their speeches held before the war - i was instantly called revanchistic. Next came the german atrocities of german soldiers killing belgian babies carrying them around on their bayonets and crucifying canadian soldiers (the Zeppelins were also called "baby killers" on the british propaganda posters). There are two major sites on the web that deal with those assumptions, and it becomes clear that those "witnessed" atrocities are indeed propaganda. But i was really shocked to see lots of especially australian forumites still believed this. So ... I do sometimes miss the historic distance, and level of information - nevermind.

 

"When you say: "A look at the wing's profile of the SE5a instantly reveals that the SE5a only climbed well with sufficient speed. Being slow and out of energy it became hard to manoueuver and unable to climb at all."

 

Isn't that true of EVERY fighter?"

 

Yes, but there were two schools of how to build wings, and most designers preferred low, sleek profiles because they thought the plane would be faster - not necessarily true. Ok, the SPAD and the SE5s with their thin wings WERE fast, but they had power plants built into their airframes that would have made a wardrobe fly.

 

Two planes of same power and fuselage would see a high-profile winged one be faster. They have posted quite some computer calculations which also show the german Dreidecker would not have needed the third wing, indeed it spoiled the airflow badly.

 

The climbing abilities of the Dr.I (guess the prototype of the Dr.I, called "F.I" or "V4" with the stronger rotary was even better than the later Dr. series plane) were due to the wings profiles, NOT its three (!) wings - this was only true for the Sopwith tripe which had three wings with thin profiles and climbed well because it had three of them. The Dr. I with its three high-profile wings would have climbed as well with two of them, and the drag would have also been reduced as a side-effect. And even the final Dr.I was not a slow plane even with 3 wings - tables range from 150 km/h to 193 km/h - a variation from appx. 90 to 120+ mph.

 

Indeed the construction of the very first Fokker Dreidecker saw the plane without any struts, and it was only because of the pilot's interfering that they were finally added. The early Dr.I's wings breaking off under stress had nothing to do with those struts, but braking stringers of poor quality, and moisture within the wings. The later Fokker Eindecker "D".VIII proved them all wrong.

 

Apart from the fact that Germany indeed wanted a plane to cope with the Sopwith tripe, the Fokker Dreidecker is construction-wise a completely different plane. At least that is what i tought i learned from books and hundreds of discussions at the aerodrome lol.

 

"Perhaps you're just talking about "turn and burn" fighters. The SE5a was an "energy fighter" or a "boom and zoom" fighter. Obviously, it couldn't follow a very agile DR1 through a series of turns but it didn't need to. Once he started bleeding off energy, the pilot broke off and extended and climbed for altitude and the DR1 was left far behind. When the SE5a came back, it had a significant energy advantage while the DR1 was at a serious disadvantage."

 

I agree to some 90 percent , however the SE5 has only an advantage if the Dr does not evade the line of fire - what it easily would have done if the pilot saw the SE5 coming. The onstorming SE5 would not be able to correct its flight and bullets against a fast turning and jumping plane of any kind. The Dr.I is a virtually (right word?) unstable plane, and Voss and the later pilots used this feature as an advantage.

Additionally if i would encounter 5 SE5as that are already near below or at same altitude, i would not run away in a straight line trying to gain altitude, but circle around an imaginary pole while climbing. But (try to) run away, i would ..

 

"The proof probably is that only about 320 DR1s were built while more than 5,000 Camels and 5,000 SE5as were manufactured. By mid-1918 the DR1 was obsolete and with all of its structural problems it probably was doomed from the start. But, yes, it certainly was the most nimble late war "turn and burn" fighter. But that wasn't worth much."

 

I'd say i agree to even more than 99 percent here

 

Greetings,

Catfish

Edited April 6, 2009 by Wels

[Rooster89 0]

I agree with you tiger .... I think the so called "legendary" status of the DR1 has messed with peoples heads who talk about it in some kind of mesmeric weirdo trance.

 

Like wow, it must be good because ....

 

a) Richtofen died in it

b) it's soooooo cute

c) Snoopy cursed it

d) WW1 movies continue to propagate the legend (give up, it doesn't put bums on seats)

 

In 1918, it was a crappy little underpowered structurally flawed aeroplane promoted and sold by possibly one of the greatest Aviation con artists of the period. And the Germans bought it ! Silly sausages.

 

I believe thems fightin' words Mr. Catch.

 

-Rooster

[catch 81]

Hehe yeah I know Rooster. And not one bite ! Oh well

[Wels 2]

Hello,

 

Hehe yeah I know Rooster. And not one bite ! Oh well

 

Not even Catfish go for every bait

 

Greeting,

Catfish