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)