Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#4586785 - 12/11/21 11:55 AM OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters?  
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 91
AlbrechtKaseltzer Offline
Junior Member
AlbrechtKaseltzer  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: May 2021
Posts: 91
I've got three that come to mind, and I'm curious about what experiences others have had! I suspect this is going to be heavily dependent on flying/piloting style, of course.

In no particular order...

#1 - Pfalz D.IIIa - Always overshadowed by its Albatros and Fokker contemporaries, and unjustly so in my opinion. I've learned to treat the Pfalz as an underpowered German take on the SE5: a rugged, stable gun platform that excels in boom-and-zoom dive attacks and high G maneuvers. I like to drive my aircraft hard, and this is the plane to do that; this thing eats Split S's for breakfast, and doesn't break a sweat doing dives that reduce other aircraft to sawdust. I only wish it were a bit faster in level flight.

[Linked Image]

I've heard about the Pfalz being stall-prone, but to me the handling feels pretty smooth in the most realistic flight model setting. And even when it does stall, it's tended to stall straight forward for me.

Honestly, I think had Pfalz stuck with this design, and maybe thickened the airfoil a bit (like Fokker did with its later designs) while using the 200-ish hp Mercedes and/or Benz engines in use in 1918...that would have given the Fokker D.VII a run for its money. That kind of "Super Pfalz" would have come very, very close to realizing the potential of "Germany's take on the SE5a" while serving as the best dive attacker of the war, even more so than the actual D.XII that Pfalz put out in 1918.

#2 - Roland C.II - Not even a fighter, but I've had campaign pilots become aces in this thing because it's simply faster, more rugged, and so much more smooth in its handling than anything else on the German side for most of 1916 - and even going into 1917, the Roland is still more than a match for Allied two-seaters. (And, like the Pfalz, it's a pretty solid gun platform). I'd certainly take this over any Eindecker, and while the Albatros D.I/D.II surpass the Roland in some respects, the Roland still has *much* better visibility.

[Linked Image]

I really don't get why the C.II didn't catch on, when IMO it performs so much better than the DFW C.V that would go on to become the standard German reconnaissance two-seater.

#3 - Nieuport 28 - IMO France chose the wrong plane when they rejected the N 28 because "we already have the SPAD 13." Unlike earlier Nieuport designs, which I often find to be somewhat "twitchy," this is yet another smooth flying experience. It's not as rock solid stable as the Pfalz or Roland, but it's more than stable enough, and it's so much more agile than anything the French are flying in 1918 - all while still moving at 128 miles per hour!

While I wish it could dive a bit harder, this is one of those aircraft that does a little bit of everything: this design maintains ~95% of the positives that I care about in the earlier Nieuport line, eliminates ~95% of the annoyances from those designs, and packs ~95% of the speed of the SPAD 13 and SE5a. I can certainly understand why some real-life pilots in the American squadrons were upset at having to switch from the N28 to the SPAD 13.

(Plus, I have to admit that Nieuport found a very elegant solution for mounting two guns in rather tight quarters).

[Linked Image]

I think this is one of those aircraft that just wasn't given a chance to move past the initial growing pains that many classic designs went through. Had there been more opportunity to tweak some of the details a bit, it wasn't going to be that hard to address the N28's diving issues. I've even read about frontline mechanics for the American squadrons who were able to make the necessary changes on their own - just imagine what an actual factory could have achieved.

Any others?

Last edited by AlbrechtKaseltzer; 12/11/21 10:34 PM.
#4586816 - 12/11/21 06:33 PM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: AlbrechtKaseltzer]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 384
Burning_Beard Offline
Member
Burning_Beard  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 384
Red Bluff, CA
One I have found very surprising is the DH5, I had always avoided it until recently. It is a little slow but boy is it tough. You often see it paired in squadrons with the SE5s, which are way faster and you will usually find yourself flying alone. It has really good visibility (except to the rear) packs a pair of sights, ring sight and Aldis. It only has one gun, but carries 750 rounds which it seems to fire faster than any other plane. It will also dive like a banshee and is superb on ground attack. If you can get above your enemy they don't really stand a chance because it is pretty nimble. If the enemy is behind you, you just fall out of the sky like a rock and head home

Last edited by Burning_Beard; 12/11/21 06:36 PM.

More Scotch and Stogies for my Wingman!
#4586851 - 12/12/21 12:37 AM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: Burning_Beard]  
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,522
jerbear Offline
Member
jerbear  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,522
Love all three of these. I fly them more than anything else, especially the Pfalz.
Jerbear

#4586861 - 12/12/21 02:02 AM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: AlbrechtKaseltzer]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,704
Rick_Rawlings Offline
Senior Member
Rick_Rawlings  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,704
I wouldn't count the Roland as underrated! I think most of us flying for the Entente are aware that it is the most dangerous foe of the mid-war period!


The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
#4586870 - 12/12/21 03:04 AM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: Rick_Rawlings]  
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 91
AlbrechtKaseltzer Offline
Junior Member
AlbrechtKaseltzer  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: May 2021
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Rick_Rawlings
I wouldn't count the Roland as underrated! I think most of us flying for the Entente are aware that it is the most dangerous foe of the mid-war period!

Tbh that's what gave me the idea to fly the Roland in campaign mode - I remembered it being a terror to face as an Entente pilot!

But when talking from the perspective of the German side in 1916, usually it's a noun, a verb, and Albatros - I don't really see many people extolling the Roland as a potent offensive fighter option, much less building a fighter pilot career around it. And IMO that's what it's perfect for.

Originally Posted by Burning_Beard
One I have found very surprising is the DH5, I had always avoided it until recently. It is a little slow but boy is it tough. You often see it paired in squadrons with the SE5s, which are way faster and you will usually find yourself flying alone. It has really good visibility (except to the rear) packs a pair of sights, ring sight and Aldis. It only has one gun, but carries 750 rounds which it seems to fire faster than any other plane. It will also dive like a banshee and is superb on ground attack. If you can get above your enemy they don't really stand a chance because it is pretty nimble. If the enemy is behind you, you just fall out of the sky like a rock and head home


Ooo, that's one I haven't tried out yet! Gonna have to check out the DH5 soon. I love those fighters that are a little quirky but give you multiple options for how to handle air combat. Diving & agility - sounds like a beast with multiple lines of attack.

Last edited by AlbrechtKaseltzer; 12/12/21 10:49 AM.
#4586926 - 12/12/21 08:11 PM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: AlbrechtKaseltzer]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,659
carrick58 Offline
Hotshot
carrick58  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,659
I dont know if the Roland was under rated, But the DH 5 was except at low altitude. At low heights the DH was capable'

#4586954 - 12/13/21 07:48 AM Re: OT: Most surprising/underrated fighters? [Re: AlbrechtKaseltzer]  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,498
Boom Offline
Senior Member
Boom  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,498
Culcairn
I remember reading that (but can't find it at the moment) IRL the Roland C.II was an awful aeroplane to fly (very heavy pilot workload), and an absolute #%&*$# to land. Something to do with lateral stability I believe.
The great ace Albert Ball made a habit of attacking formations of Rolands and eating them for breakfast in 1916.


"Somewhere out there is page 6!"
"But Emillo you promised ....... it's postpone"
ASWWIAH Member

Moderated by  Polovski 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0