Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5

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)

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)

Some good ideas there - and thanks for correcting the numbers (but can you cite these changes?). The comment about the SE not being "outclassed" by the D VII certainly doesn't mean that either fighter was superior to the other in every respect of course. Actually neither of these "stationary" engined fighters was especially manoverable (certainly not endowed with "extreme" manoeverability) when compared with (say) the Camel or the Snipe, or for that matter the Fokker Dr 1 or the SSW D.IV (not to mention the Nieuport!). Both the SE and the D VII were famous for their "kindness" to inexperienced pilots - somebody said of the D VII that it made a poor pilot into a good pilot, and a good pilot into an ace (or words to that effect). The SE had a similar reputation (of combining stability with "quite good" manoeverability). The "outclassed" allied fighters would include the Sopwith Camel and the Nieuport 28 (and anything older, of course) apart from the SE, the Dolphin and the S XIII. As for whether the SE or the D VII was the better fighter - the SE was much faster and the Fokker was a good deal more manoeverable (although the difference was rather less than "extreme"). As for the armament - it would have been quite easy to have removed the upper-wing Lewis on the SE and replace it with an extra syncronised gun - it wasn't done because there were actually a good many advantages to having a weapon that could be fired at an angle, especially when it "harmonised" reasonably with the other gun when fired straight forward. So far as "durability" was concerned - what exactly are we talking about here? The D VII was a typical Fokker structure, with a fabric and ply covered welded steel frame fuselage and a wooden cantilever wing. We don't hear any stories of weakness or deterioration in the structure (as we do for several other German fighters, including the Albatros and the Triplane) - but really the first D VIIs built were still almost new when the war ended, even allowing for the short life of a 1918 aeroplane. Where does the "extreme" durability come from? The SE's all-wooden airframe had a good reputation for strength, after some initial problems with the prototypes. I actually can't recall any firm equivalent information about the D VII - although perhaps we can assume that if there had been any real problems they would be mentioned in the records.

Albert Ball took the first prototype for a flight at Farnborough - and, as you state, was not favourably impressed (to be kind). He didn't like the high seating or the poor lateral control at low speed (both of which were changed in production models) and missed his favorite Nieuport's sensitivity. Also, like many people before and since, he was liable to be suspicious of anything good coming out of the Royal Aircraft Factory. This is already mentioned in the article (that's what "disparaging" means!).

On the whole, making too much of either of these points (comparision with the D VII and the opinion of Albert Ball) in THIS article (they have their own articles.) is not really a good thing to do. The fact is that the SE, in spite of coming out a full year before the D VII, compared quite well with its German counterpart - although each was better than the other in some respects. Albert Ball was initially VERY disparaging of the SE - but later came to quite like it (albeit he always preferred his Nieuport). That's all the article says really - and I don't think inaccurately in either case.

Having said ALL THAT (!) - I am going to reexamine the lead and see if we can improve it - I'm by no means sure that it doesn't echo a source a little too closely than we would like. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the answer, i wasn't expecting an answer that fast.

To answer some of the points you have raised:

"Where does the "extreme" durability come from? The SE's all-wooden airframe had a good reputation for strength, after some initial problems with the prototypes."

It looks like you are not aware that the D7 was in high percentage made of steel.

Although i have read it uncountable number of times, including in encyclopedias, here is the fastest source i found on internet:

"The fuselage was constructed of wire-braced welded steel tubing with a three-ply top decking behind the cockpit; the whole being fabric-covered, except for the engine cowlings. Fin, balanced rudder, tailplane and balanced elevators were also of fabric-covered steel tube. Two struts braced the tailplane from below. The undercarriage was of streamlined steel tube and its axle was enclosed in a large fairing which gave some extra lift. "

http://www.aviation-history.com/fokker/d7.html

Not only the steel was superior to the all-wooden structures of the era, BUT also in the way the aircraft was assembled the structure was made more resistant. Contrary to other aircraft, the D7 was assembled in different combined "blocks" that were solidary the one from the other, which strenghtened the strucutre. This is referred in both my Italian and French encyclopedias as "Semi-monocoque structure" which was being used for Albatros already, although with wood instead of steel.

"As for the armament - it would have been quite easy to have removed the upper-wing Lewis on the SE and replace it with an extra syncronised gun - it wasn't done because there were actually a good many advantages to having a weapon that could be fired at an angle, especially when it "harmonised" reasonably with the other gun when fired straight forward."

The angled lewis could be a virtue to attack the bombers from unexpected angle, however this doesn't change the fact that the firepower of the aircraft was drastically reduced as both machineguns could not be fired at the same time.

As relates the reports of James Mccudden and some other British pilots, they either fired the vickers, or the Lewis. Because one hand was need for each. Firing both at the same time would make the "unpiloted fly" quite not adapted to aim and shoot accurately.

You may understand why firing one machinegun only is greatly reduced firepower compared to two synchrnized machineguns.

Not only that, but the Lewis gun only fired with drums of ammunition, biggest drums had 97 shots, but the most common had about 50 shots. After 50 shots begin fired, the bulky Lewis needed to be reloaded WHILE IN FLIGHT thanks to the foster mounting.

Thats why most sources consider 2 synchronised machineguns as superior firepower. As a fact i think that after the SE5, even the british army would drop the use of this kind of armament, at least i dont know any aircraft post-SE5 using it.

If that wasn't enough, most of the serious sources including reenactors flying old machines like Franck TALLMAN consider the Fokker DVII as being a step forward any other aircraft of the era,in matters as well as modernity AND flying performance, even though it was slightly slower than the SE5a and SPADs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All Fokkers of this period - going back to the Eindecker, and on well into the twenties and early thirties - had fuselages with a basic welded steel tube structure - combined with wooden wings. The Fokker factory (at least in the period 1914-1918) was notorious for poor workmanship - although the D VII seems to have been better built than (say) the D III or the Dr.1. Much more important than the actual material used is of course the level of structural engineering. A steel structure is by no means automatically stronger than a wooden one. Incidentally the D VII's fuselage WASN'T monocoque (or even semi) at all - the fabric and thin ply covering contributed no strenth or rigidity - all this came from the steel tube framework. If you have a book that says otherwise the author doesn't know what "monocoque" means. (Look it up.)

Without arguing about the virtues of twin syncronised guns and the "Lewis + Vickers" arrangement, let's get our facts straight. On the SE the Lewis and the Vickers WERE normally fired forward together, unless the Lewis was being fired upwards or at an angle, when it did need to be fired separately (and by directly pulling the trigger - normally of course both guns were triggered togther, by bowden cables, from a button on the joystick). The two guns fired the same ammumition at about the same rate of fire so firepower was roughly the same. A 1918 vintage synchronised Vickers very seldom fired 90 rounds without jamming - a free firing Lewis DID need its drum changed every 97 rounds but was much more reliable in this respect. Failure of the synchronising gear, which was still frequent, only cut one gun instead of both. Harmonisation between the two guns was inferior - if only because the Lewis vibrated more, producing a wider spread of bullets (for most pilots this was more of an advantage than a hinderance - although for the real marksman it was another matter of course). The official specification to which later British fighters (such as the Snipe) were designed included provision of a Lewis firing upward - although in practice in most cases it proved impossible to design a manageable mounting, and this part of the specification was quietly dropped. The Dolphin actually had two Lewis guns - although these COULDN'T be fired fowards in harmonisation with the Vickers - there was no structure to lift them over the arc of the prop to do so.

No one is denying that the D VII was technically a ground breaking aircraft - in fact some of its basic features were carried through to post-war Fokkers. In fact it DOES have its very own Wikipedia article! I think what the original editor was trying to make clear in the passage you objected to was that the SE coped better with the D VII than some types, such as the Camel. To rephrase that from the German point of view - the D VII walked all over the Camel - but the SE remained a difficult opponent. In fact I actually edited this passage to make this a little more clear - and also because the actual words before we edited them semed to be a direct lift from a standard source.

Always good to exchange views with a fellow WWI aircraft buff! And have fun editing Wikipedia we don't have nearly enough well read, "good faith" editors in this field. Even when we "argue", as here, the article is, I think, the better for it - which is all that matters. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)