Which could turn tighter in real life? Which would be victorious in a 1 vs 1 ?
Easy. Usually the guy who saw the other guy first and/or was never seen himself. However, I concede that was not an across-the-board guarantee. Look at Roy Brown’s failure to shoot down Richthofen during his surprise attack. (That’s right, folks: failure. The world is round and our solar system heliocentric, despite what we used to believe.)
Regarding turning, there are no flyable Dr.Is left. But Fred Murrin has a to-the-spec reproduction of one with an Oberursel, and he writes:
"It has long been accepted that the Dr.I could turn faster in one direction than in the opposite direction. I could not remember which way it was supposed to turn faster, so I decided to try it. After 16 years of flying the rotary Dr.I, I still can't tell which way it turns faster. It turns both ways equally fast and is not a function of the torque, rather the short fuselage and wings."
Other interesting first-hand comments from this knowledgeable man:
"The Dr.I has no dihedral in its wings and no vertical stabilizer, so a skidding turn was not difficult to make. The short fuselage and concentrated masses were also factors that helped with this unusual capability. The rotating engine, oddly enough, does little to inhibit the airplane's maneuverability. However, it does put a bending load on the crankshaft that could cause damage."
"Having attempted this flat turn in my own rotary Dr.I on several occasions, I can say the description that Voss 'threw his tail behind him' seems like a reasonable observation. When doing so, the airplane goes into buffeting caused by the obvious stall from the airflow going nearly span-wise across the wings. The nose doesn't drop, but the airplane is going very slow at this point. Given the marginal aileron performance and easy skidding qualities of the design, it is understandable that Voss and other pilots would find it expedient to turn with the rudder while fighting an airplane at the same altitude."
"Flying a rotary-powered Fokker Dr.I that is accurately built and with the same wing loading as an original [as does his] is not all that difficult, but landing it safely is the biggest challenge."
On the other side, Javier Arango has a just-as-accurate Camel reproduction with a Gnome rotary engine. Some of his comments:
“Flying the Sopwith Camel is a constant job. Its center of gravity is much farther back than that of our modern airplanes. This causes the Camel to be neutrally stable in pitch and yaw. The Camel does not naturally return to a stable flight speed. On the contrary, it tends to pick its own way, diverging at will with minimal warning to the pilot. One benefit is that control forces in pitch and yaw are minimal throughout its wide range of speeds. They are, in fact, so light that the airplane has no elevator trim. Our modern airplanes require constant use of a trim tab to adjust for control forces with a deviation of even 20 knots. The Camel can extend its speed through an envelope of 100 knots or more without use of a trim. On the other hand, the pilot must continuously fly the airplane, unable to let it go for long. This lack of positive stability is not a difficult thing to master. A moderately experienced pilot can easily learn to overcome this tendency. Bicycles are unstable too and yet we can all learn to ride them.”
“The Camel has poor control harmony; the elevators are very sensitive, the rudder has very little feel, and the ailerons are quite heavy. Managing the rotary engine is not as simple as operating a Hispano-Suiza, for example…When full power is selected, the Camel accelerates almost instantaneously, driven by its very large, efficient propeller, turning at low RPM, even at full power.”
“All these qualities may imply that the Camel is a difficult airplane to fly. It must have been to a pilot with very limited experience, mostly in underpowered, lumbering old planes. To such pilots, the immediate and aggressive acceleration of the Camel, combined with its light pitch forces, must have been startling, often leading to accidents. But the truth is that if one has the luxury of learning the ways of the Camel in peace, under good conditions, and with the benefit of experience, the airplane is a pleasure to fly. Pilots learn to adapt to the particular demands of the Camel very quickly. Within a few flights, the busy workload becomes second nature.”