Jump to content

Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.86.32.36 (talk) at 15:52, 6 April 2011 (→BIAS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Layout

I have a new wider monitor - hope I haven't spoiled the layout of the article on narrower screens! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


BIAS

This article seems to have signs of bias at different locations. I will use what i know for sure from my knowledge, and would like the point of view of experts. If agreed, some modifications may need to be done to the main article.

1)

"Perhaps its greatest advantage over the Camel was its superior performance at altitude – so that (unlike most Allied fighters) it was not outclassed by the Fokker D.VII when that fighter arrived at the front."

This quotation is total nonsense. "(unlike most Allied fighters)" For the one who wrote this article: By the time the SE5a entered service, "most" of allied were being equiped with the high speed/altitude/performance SPAD that appeared since september 1916!! Months before the SE5. SPADs equiped in huge quantity the french (in numbers the french was the most important allied actor of WW1) who systematically replaced their Nieuport by SPADs (British still used nieuport until 1917/1918 though)but then with the Spas13 appearing in June 1917, it was given to equip american (The third allied actor of WW1), italians and other minor countries.

So "most" of the allies had the superior performance SPAD which were at least as fast as the SE5.

The Fokker DVII still outclassed them (both SE5 and SPADs) not because of speed, which was inferior to most allied aircraft, but because of a combination of extreme durability (semi-monocoque metal fuselage) extreme manoeuverability and easyness to fly, great speed and rate of climb, 2 synchronised machineguns (that only the SPAD13 had contrary to both SPAD7 and SE5).

Because of all this, the fokker D7 was the best "all around" fighter of that period, maybe even WW1.

So the speed and height argument to justify that the SE5 was not outclassed by Fokker D7 is doubly wrong.


However if we change the "unlike most Allied fighters" to "unlike most British fighters", then it takes a lot of sense since in that era, most british aircraft were (inferior speed) rotary engines (Sopwith and Nieuport for the most)

But saying the SE5 wasn't outclassed by the Fokker DVII is still wrong, and i'm pretty sure that most WW1 specialists do agree with me on that point.


2)

" Albert Ball was initially disparaging of the S.E.5 but in the end claimed 17 of his 44 victories flying it"

This is partly wrong, partly playing on words. The number is wrong (see below). Even though Ball DID fly in the SE5 and got victories, he still continued to prefer the Nieuport and actually, one of his very last kills was made on Nieuport which he was still flying until he died.

Also, the 17 number is wrong, by http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/ball.php his detailed killings show a maximum of 11 aircraft killed with the SE5. Plus, if BALL had really the 17 kills claimed, this would basically mean that the SE5 appeared in service in 1916 (when the protoype hadn't even been flown one single time!)


I think Albert BALL should be withdrawn from the article praising SE5 virtues, as he is exactly the wrong example for that, he who said once

"The S.E.5 has turned out a dud... It's a great shame, for everybody expects such a lot from them... it is a rotten machine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Aircraft_Factory_S.E.5&oldid=422710141"