Billy Bishop believed the SE5a to be a great, steady, gun platform. He also commented on its impressive performance. Like other WW1 aviators, Bishop, knew that earlier machines were deafening. The SE5a with its long exhaust pipes was a merciful fighter for those who had used other fighters and in the process lost hearing. It is important to read what the WW1 aces had to say about the machines they flew, only these men knew the true improvement the SE5a represented. Computer simulations will never represent the actual experience of flying an aircraft.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
To be fair, I do try to read some of their accounts to get a full picture of the plane while writing the script, but maybe including some quotes could be a good idea in future videos.
@WonkeyWabbit
Жыл бұрын
1:30 The picture shows Sopwith Snipes, not Sopwith Camels. I know the picture itself is mislabelled, but there are big visual differences between the Camel and the Snipe that are very easy to pick up, e.g. single bay vs two bay wings, flat upper wing vs v-shaped upper wing. The pilot sits considerably higher in the Snipe than a Camel in a more bulbous fuselage.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Good spot, I should really have noticed that seeing as the Camel is one of my favorite planes ever, I must have just seen the label and not really thought about it. Thanks for pointing it out.
@jamesharmer9293
Жыл бұрын
Also the Snipe has that weird looking tail fin. What's that for ?
@leifvejby8023
Жыл бұрын
@@jamesharmer9293 Balanced rudder
@ronjon7942
Жыл бұрын
Shoot, nice catch, Simon.
@pstrutt1
Жыл бұрын
@@jamesharmer9293 The aircraft in the foreground is the 'early' version and the one behind it is a later version.
@brianspendelow840
Жыл бұрын
Deciding which was the best British fighter of WWI depends on which facts you choose to use. The Se5a was a lot easier to fly than the Camel, but it was the Camel that shot down more German aircraft. The loss ratio was high due to it's high accident rate when flown by inexperienced pilots. The Camel's nickname was "The cadet killer."
@canopus101
Жыл бұрын
To this day the most effective fighters, in dog fighting, are those that are unstable and able to be flicked around quickly by expert pilots. The Sopwith Camel fitted the bill for this, The SE 5 was more forgiving but less agile. I know which aircraft Biggles preferred!
@masondegaulle5731
Жыл бұрын
@@canopus101 Biggles. Man, but that takes me back a long way!
@legoman6186
Ай бұрын
@@canopus101 His friendly rivalry with Wilks of SE 5 squadron 287 was excellent.
@calway1962
Жыл бұрын
I'm afraid I really can't get along with computer generated commentary yet, it still sounds machine-like and stilted to me.
@leifvejby8023
Жыл бұрын
Me too!
@t.j.payeur5331
Жыл бұрын
I Hate it! A lot of times it's a translation program but I still hate it.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I believe there are a fair number of people hold this view, but from my perspective, I am not willing/ able to broadcast my voice on KZitem (for reasons I am not going to go into) so I don't really have an alternative. I have looked into hiring narrators but they all cost a lot of money considering the Chanel is not where near profitable. In all seriousness, I would be grateful to here any alternative suggestions you may have as I'm not a great fan of computer narration either.
@ronjon7942
Жыл бұрын
I dunno, this is the best AI voice I've ever heard, plus it sounds so properly smart w the English accent. I'm still not sure if it's even really AI, I'd never have thought it wasn't a human's voice. Edit: Oh, I guess Historical Engineering would know. And yeah, I totally get the privacy and security concerns, especially with anything involving Google. And no, my name isn't RonJon, and I'm really a brilliant Golden Retriever.
@TRHARTAmericanArtist
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering - It doesn't bother me a bit. I would rather hear this than amateurs like those in Libravox recordings destroy the material with mispronunciations, pauses, and sentences that always go up at the end like a question. I will be looking into this myself as I am unsure that I will be able to read my own books due to health reasons. - Love your channel, keep uploading. - T.R.
@andrewcomerford264
Жыл бұрын
The Lewis gun was mounted on a rail, to permit reloading (it fired from a 97 round drum). The ability to fire upwards was a benefit, not an intention.
@JayM409
Жыл бұрын
There are photos of Billy Bishop demonstrating (on the ground), how he changes magazines on his Lewis guns.
@johnscarr70
Жыл бұрын
I read that was a tactic used by Ball: getting under the unsuspecting enemy then emptying a drum into him.
@kevvoo1967
Жыл бұрын
Scarf mount.
@kellybreen5526
Жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the video, but as great as the SE5 was the ace chart provided is misleading. Bishop and Ball scored the majority of their victories in the Nieuport 17, Collishaw and McLaren in Sopwith aircraft. Collishaw in the triplane and Camel. Ball was not fond of the SE5 because it was the early version with the greenhouse canopy - which was never shown in the video. It was almost like a full canopy like those from the 1930’s.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I think that's a fair point, I suppose the idea I was trying to get across is that the SE5 was so widely used among top aces, in hind sight, I think displaying the number of victories in the SE5 would have been a helpful addition. Thanks for paying such careful attention.
@kellybreen5526
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering I enjoyed the video and am looking forward to more.
@21wagstaff
Жыл бұрын
The canopy was a feature of the initial few Se5 150hp types. Ball removed his very early on and the AVRO screen became standard quickly before the A variant. The 220hp HS8B was just an upgraded 200hp engine with high compression pistons. McCudden fitted his own
@hertzair1186
Жыл бұрын
The Fokker D-7 is widely recognized as the best overall fighter of WW1…so much so that is was specifically named in the Treaty of Versailles as a weapon to be handed over.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Very true, in the conclusion I probably should have specified best British plane which is more what I was going for as a sentiment. I'm defiantly looking forward to putting the video together on the Fokker together, it really was a brilliant plane.
@hertzair1186
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering …you did a great review of the SE5A …..I would say it gave the D-7 trouble….
@paulflocken2730
Жыл бұрын
This claim you repeat is a myth. It was not the Versailles treaty which claimed the Fokkers. It was the armistice agreement. Section IV of the armistice agreement is as follows: IV. Surrender in good condition by the German armies of the following equipment: 5,000 guns (2,500 heavy, 2,500 field), 25,000 machine guns, 3,000 trench mortars, 1,700 aeroplanes (fighters, bombers-firstly all D. 7's and night-bombing machines). The DVII's were just part of what had to be turned over. Although they were mentioned specifically and no other weapon was so honored. Also, all the DVII's had to be accounted for, along with all night bombers, first before any other aircraft could be counted as part of the 1,700.
@hitime2405
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering no! he is wrong and you are right, simple fact, top speed of the Fokker DVII Was 117 mph, top speed of the SE5a 130 mph, 13 mph slower!!!!! No way was the Fokker DVII the best fighter of the war.
@erikschultz7166
Жыл бұрын
The D7 was the FW190 of WW 1?
@jameswebb4593
Жыл бұрын
Two points , the SE5a was the best fighter of WW1. The high losses of the RFC was all due to the with policy of being offensive . The Germans rarely crossed the lines , saw better gains in sitting upstairs waiting for the British . The battle of Cambrai in November 1917 , the first use of land forces , Tanks supported by Artillery , with aircraft in the fighter bomber role . Cost the RFC 400 planes. The same devil may care attitude of throwing aircraft at the enemy was continued in the battle of France 1940. Great loss of life in crews flying obsolete aircraft. Fairy Battle and the Blenheim . Those pilots were well trained . just put in an impossible situation , like their fathers in WW1.
@Julius_Hardware
Жыл бұрын
Agree. A key factor was the SE5a was fast - British fighter aircraft (DH2, FE2, Pup, Tripe, Camel) had tended to be more maneuverable but slower than the German equivalents, so the German could always dive away (if the wings didn't fall off) and escape. A British pilot couldn't do the same (which doomed Hawker). The SE5a reversed that.
@downwindchecklist6567
Жыл бұрын
Nice summary and overview, thx for putting it together!
@faeembrugh
Жыл бұрын
From what I'vs read of accounts written by pilots who flew the SE5a it was considered to be fast, reliable and with good climb and dive characteristics. So the tactic of attacking from altitude (which in WW1 might only be 15.000ft), then making a high-speed diving attack and then speeding out of trouble was common. It wasn't so good in a dogfight so pilots were discouraged from getting into a battle of manoeuvre when, instead, you could easily outpace almost all German scout planes.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Very true, speed and structural strength were defiantly its great asset
@sugarnads
Жыл бұрын
The spitfire of ww1? It was the flippin hurricane - easier to fly, good gun platform, took more punishment. The camel was the spitfire, more manouverable, harder to master, struck fear into the hearts of the enemy. Flown by Biggles. The end.
@dataflowc
Жыл бұрын
Ignore the Archie and look for the Hun in the sun.
@batteredwarrior
Жыл бұрын
Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane... Camel was slower than the S.E.5a. The S.E.5a also had good high altitude performance, like the Spitfire. The Camel didn't. The S.E.5a also had a superior climb rate, like the Spitfire.
@Olleetheowl
Жыл бұрын
Great video, spoilt by the “Voice”
@blue_beephang-glider5417
Жыл бұрын
Camels were used to destroy nearly 3,000 enemy planes - more than any other aircraft of WWI. Albert Ball was a high scoring ace before getting put in an SE-5a, which he did not like, and in a SE5a he died. Having spoken to a current pilot who now flys WW1 rotary powered airplanes. He states that the Chinese whispers from one book to another have made it seam like only super humans could fly them. In reality the torque effects are not that bad and with simply rotating pistons they are smooth as glass.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
That's interesting about the chinese whispers idea, its true that a lot of pilots struggled to fly the camels, bu I guess that sentiment probably does build an idea that they were impossible to fly, which fortunately they weren't
@streamofconsciousness5826
Жыл бұрын
Lets ~Salute~ the modders who spent years refining that Virtual plane to be a exact replica. (all of them in teh Video) The Camel was the Spitfire, the SE5 was the Hurricane. Media darling v work horse.
@jfu5222
Жыл бұрын
Well done, I'm your newest subscriber!
@paullubliner6221
Жыл бұрын
Self proclaimed experts abound. AT :59 those are Sopwith Snipes not Camels. Twin sets of struts per side, that balance horn on the rudder are easy to see.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Correct, sadly the picture was mis labeled and when I put it in I obviously didn't look to hard, very sorry.
@trismegistusqueeg9565
Жыл бұрын
I think you'll find the Sopwith Camel appeared a few months after the SE5. Not the other way round.
@jak1590
Жыл бұрын
A great fighter but seriously under gunned compared to German types. The Sopwith Camel was far more manoeuvrable but difficult to fly for inexperienced pilots. The SE 5 is better compared to the Hurricane as they where both stable gun platforms and could take more battle damage. The Camel went on to be the progenitor of many post war fighter designs so is a better comparison for the Spitfire.
@jimdavis8391
Жыл бұрын
Don't forget the Spad series and Nieuport fighters the French fielded! The SE5 occupies a place similar to the Hawker Hurricane in WW2, forgiving of mistakes and dependable. By 1917 the nature of aerial warfare was already changing, away from 'Knights of the air' and towards the military industrial complex that would be refined throughout the 1930s and come to brutally dominate WW2 through the giant American arsenal developed from 1941 onwards.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I wouldn't want to forget either of them, defiantly excited to be working on videos for both of them, but I think I would stand by the Spitfire quote, it it worth remembering that the Spad and Nieuport were French and mainly supplied the US and French. The RFC had to work mostly with the SE5 and Camel for fighters in the later part of the war and out of the fighters the RFC had, the SE5 defiantly stands out as most successful plane, would agree on the rest though, the forgiving and dependable nature was one of its great strengths. Also true about the industrialization, as I briefly mentioned in the video, having a good supply chain was critical to having a good plane, another reason the SE5 could see such success.
@jimdavis8391
Жыл бұрын
@Historical Enginering The production of the Wolseley Viper engine echos that of the Packhard Merlin too. Take a fundamentally good design, though labour intensive and underdeveloped and then entrust it to a company with a track record of investment, organisation and R&D skills.
@timphillips9954
Жыл бұрын
Here go Jim, next we are going comment on how the Americans saved little old England in both wars. Get a grip Jim!
@jimdavis8391
Жыл бұрын
@tim phillips Sure did boy, we saved your asses from the Commies too. 😀
@sugarnads
Жыл бұрын
@@jimdavis8391your flippin lot were actually proper involved in ww1 for a total of about 4 sodding weeks. And it took a direct attack by uboat to get you off your arses. And you call the french cowards. You didnt see any combat worth mentioning until the ANZACs and Canadians had already punched through the huns lines and put them to flight. Your lot MOPPED UP. Then ran round bragging for the next 100 years. Sold to both sides up until you finally got off your arses and did the right thing then fuckt about for over a year forcing the french and british to feed, clothe and arm your sorry arses for a year before you wandered into a fight that was already OVER. WW2? If japan didnt attack you and germany declare war you might never have gotten involved. And you call the french cowards. Did some good work in the pacific. But remember Macarthur himself considered 1 Australian division worth 3 American...and he was never game to unleash the bloody mayhem that was the division that made up the NZ in ANZAC (and no im not a kiwi. Im just bloody glad theyre on our side).
@patrickradcliffe3837
Жыл бұрын
1:44 messed up the conversions in the graphic. 2:10 the Vickers was mounted on the top wing outside the propeller arc.
@DaveGIS123
Жыл бұрын
2:10 Actually, the Vickers was mounted on the center-left side of the fuselage ahead of the cockpit and was angled upwards by 5 degrees. The machine gun mounted on the top wing was a Lewis. (btw, the label in the graphic points to the telescopic gunsight).
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Apologies for the conversion mistake, 19,500ft=5950m, I will certainly make sure to check conversions more carefully in future. As for the comments about the gun, David is quite right, the Lewis gun was mounted on the upper wing and the Vickers gun fired through the propeller, as explained in the video. With regard to the arrow pointing at the telescopic sight, that was not intentional as the arrow is not terribly precise and the gun is not visible, however I think that the many other clips and images of the forward guns make up for this. I am working on ways to animate displaying things such as guns to make it easier to understand. Thanks for watching so carefully.
@mandst5466
Жыл бұрын
To me it sounds like in many ways the SE5A was the Hurricane of the First World War and the Camel was the Spitfire equivalent 🤔
@danielburgess7785
Жыл бұрын
"S.E.5a's Don't wobble!"
@Allan_aka_RocKITEman
Жыл бұрын
FWIW: The *SE5a* is one of my favorite WWI fighter aircraft.
@raycollishaw673
Жыл бұрын
Good job.
@pstrutt1
Жыл бұрын
The aircraft shown at around 1 minute in are Sopwith Snipes, not Camels. Very different
@louisavondart9178
Жыл бұрын
The SE5a was the first model plane I ever built. I was 7. The Albatross D3 was the second and I liked it's shape better. But, the D3 killed a lot of pilots when the lower wing failed in steep dives. What did I know? I was 7.
@ericswain70
Жыл бұрын
Go Billy Bishop
@stephenwilliams-y1y
5 ай бұрын
The Title screen refers to it as the RAF SE5. That's partially correct - it should be RFC, the RAF wasn't formed till after WW1.
@stephenwilliams-y1y
5 ай бұрын
Oops, ok I just realised RAF in this case meant Royal Aircraft Factory! My oops.
@john.p.jenkins4410
Жыл бұрын
The SE5A certainly contributed greatly to the allied air war effort but i would question it being compared to the spitfire. It was fast at 126 mph but lacked maneuverability due to its inline engine. A hit and run aircraft it lacked the dog fighting abilites of the camel . In earlier decades the camel i believe was often reguarded as the best British warplane which was probably based on the official number of 1291 enemy aircraft downed compared to about 700 i think for the SE5A . Although this might depend on numbers deployed etc. Two quite different aircraft but both played important roles in their own right. Abilities and different preferences of the individual pilots would probably have a large influence on which aircraft were favoured.
@chrisduckett5496
Жыл бұрын
Billy Bishop 72 kills?- Well that's what they say.
@conradnelson5283
Жыл бұрын
Well, dang. Never heard of the SE5. I always thought the sop with camel was the best. Never stop learning.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
It's defiantly undervalued as it wasn't so iconic, but performed a great service, Thanks for watching
@multa765
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering I think you mean definitely. Defiantly is not the droid you're looking for.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
@@multa765 Correct, that's auto spell check for you, thanks
@markpatterson4917
Жыл бұрын
Nice video I own a scale RC SE5A. I'm not an ace yet only flown through one other plane.
@sugarnads
Жыл бұрын
Hang onnnn bishop became an ace in the nieuport 17.
@stephensmith5982
Жыл бұрын
I have a question How do the shoot down ratios of French fighters compare with those of the British and commonwealth?
@southwerk
Жыл бұрын
Very well done.
@evilstorm5954
Жыл бұрын
Biggles flew the Camel.
@doraexplora9046
Жыл бұрын
Well as an unindoctrinated teenager in the 60's. I built the Sopwith Camel, the SE5a and the Fokker DVII models as control line flyers. I Loved both the Camel and the Fokker for lines of beauty and innovation. I'd seen nothing but boring films about the SE5 and thought it was too rudimentary. But just maybe, I saw the first uninspiring version and lost interest in it.
@dv7768
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the video. I built a full scale Sopwith pup so I have done a lot of research on the subject. Sorry but the spitfire was not the SE5a, the Camel was. Both the Spit and the Camel were described as "Tramps on the ground and ladies in the air" by those who flew them. The Camel inherited its bad ground handling from the Pup. And they were MUCH better than the Dr1 or the early Nieuports. Verses a modern plane they truly suck on the ground. The Bristol "Misfit" would be the Mosquito or maybe the Beaufighter. Great and relatively big plane, got to taxi in one of them. Maybe a better comparison would be SE5a is equal to the P51, just all round good plane. Or maybe SE5a is equal to the Hellcat (a solid and very good/stable plane) and the Camel is equal to the F4U. Cheers.
@masondegaulle5731
Жыл бұрын
This feels very bias toward the S.E.5. Undoubtedly a great early energy fighter, and a solid standard, but it's very telling that _good_ pilots found it a bit basic and preferred the handling other aircraft were capable of, such as the Sopwiths. To me, the single greatest point of the S.E.5 is its ability to dive beyond speeds of its peers of the time. That alone must have saved countless inexperienced pilots.
@glynluff2595
Жыл бұрын
You omitted reference to the Bristol fighter
@jameskelly7782
Жыл бұрын
Your wrong mate....the sopwith was the spitfire, the SE was much likthehurricane ,an ignored gem.
@thedolt9215
Жыл бұрын
Good Contant, however, I would prefer you narrate it yourself please…
@kotori87gaming89
Жыл бұрын
I can't get over how you talk about the SE5a as the best British fighter of WWI, then show a bunch of footage of a rookie getting his butt kicked by easy AIs.
@sugarnads
Жыл бұрын
Talks about bloody april. Shows shitty be2cs and an mighty FE2. The Fe was much loved by their crews. Biggles once fought off 15 no 20 albatros3 in an fe! Youre a damnable hun robot sir. Wheres the lovely agile sopwith pup that the bloody huns were terrified of?
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I will give you that both the Pup and FE were great planes, but by bloody April they just weren't as scary, by this point the Pup was becoming simply too slow and the SE5 was also just not quick or agile enough by that point, and whilst I love Biggles, I wouldn't base my assessments of planes on what he could do. Side notes, I think I choose not to include the Pup for the simply reasons that it is easy to confuse with the Camel for some, and the screen was just trying to give an overview. Also the next video being animated is the FE2b.
@alanhoff2762
11 ай бұрын
Was it also referred to as a "Jenny"?
@KlingbergWingMkII
Жыл бұрын
Music too loud. Thumbs down.
@richardwilton722
Жыл бұрын
Surely the best fighter of WWI was the Fokker DVII. At the RAF museum at Hendon, it's pointed out amongst the exhibits that the Fokker DVII was the only machine that the allies insisted on getting access to as part of the peace treaty. Although it was a biplane (hence the "D" for Doppeldecker in the number), unlike contemporary designs, it didn't use bracing wires. The wings were cantilevered. Also it could "hang" on its propeller for a period without stalling into a spin (unlike the Camel). As it arrived after the SE5, it made less of a contribution, but allied pilots quickly grew to respect it.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
That is certainly a convincing argument, I think I should have made it more clear I was suggesting it was the best British fighter of the war
@JTA1961
Жыл бұрын
Looks like a flying brick.
@billspence1799
Жыл бұрын
Don't let it hit you then 😊
@lenrichardson7349
Жыл бұрын
AI writen
@Outlier999
Жыл бұрын
Why didn't the Americans use them? They flew Spads, Nieuports, and Camels. Why not SE5s?
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
To the best of my knowledge, it's because the SE5 was produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory, which was a state owned thing that produced the planes for the RFC, and that was their priority. On the other hand, Sopwith (maker of the Camel) was a private company so would sell to anyone with money, as was the same for the french Nieuports and Spads.
@warrenbruhn5888
7 ай бұрын
I read that the Americans had 2 squadrons equipped with the SE 5a, but eventually all American pursuit squadrons were equipped with the SPAD XIII.
@alexrevell8114
Жыл бұрын
So many mistakes and misinformation in this video, just not worth the time to list them all. Why do people with so little basic knowledge make such videos? Money?
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I would be interested to know what mistakes you are going on about, I am aware of two small errors which I have responded to, an incorrect conversion from feet to meters and inserting a mislabeled picture of a Sopwith Snipe. I find it much more palatable when people decide to insult me when they actually have some substance.
@daviddishon642
Жыл бұрын
Not rotary it’s a radial the rotary is a wankel it came along much later
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Actually it was a rotary engine in the Camel, people often seem to get this confused. A rotary engine is like a radial engine (such as in the Sopwith Pup) but the whole cylinder arrangement spins (allowing for self cooling, and a severe gyroscopic effect). The Wankel engine is something completely different, sometimes incorrectly labeled as a rotary engine, it was nothing to do with First World War planes. For more information, I go into some detail on how rotary engines work in my video on the Sopwith Camel
@steveshoemaker6347
Жыл бұрын
👍👍 🇺🇸
@johncitizen306
Жыл бұрын
🇺🇸=💩 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@johnking6252
Жыл бұрын
Do you get so much information wrong because you're a computer or just don't know? ✌️
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I would be interested to know what mistakes you are going on about, I am aware of two small errors which I have responded to, an incorrect conversion from feet to meters and inserting a mislabeled picture of a Sopwith Snipe. I find it much more palatable when people decide to insult me when they actually have some substance.
@johnking6252
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering the armament arrangement for one .
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
@@johnking6252 Care to elaborate, as far as I am aware all that information is correct
@johnking6252
Жыл бұрын
@@historicalenginering I thought it originally just had the wing gun .
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
@@johnking6252 Not as far as I'm aware, certainly the original production SE5s had both guns, possibly a very early prototype lacked the forward gun, but I see that as quite unlikely since fighters without a standard forward gun were few and far between, certainly I have been unable to find any record of it.
@adoreslaurel
Жыл бұрын
No armor and no parachute, no wonder they lost so many pilots.
@keithdenton8386
Жыл бұрын
Stop the music its so distracting I can watch something that should be interesting. Very unprofessional.
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
Much as I wish it that they did, most of my audience do not have your level of attention span and the music helps them to remain intrested. Also, whilst I have received on complaint from you about it, I have received an enormous number of complaints about the boorishness of the computer generated voice, and I think that this is a good way to help alleviate some of that. Sorry if it upsets you
@rjk69
Жыл бұрын
I HATE computer narration.
@ian757
Жыл бұрын
So lazy just to have an AI generated video and voice. It jars and I stopped watching soon into it. I’d rather read the info myself as there is. O insight or added value to this mechanical reader of text.
@gfodale
Жыл бұрын
Learn the difference between the SE5, and the SE5a. Your verbal report is flawed badly.
@nicholasoliver
Жыл бұрын
Awful computer generated voiceover.
@tipi5586
4 ай бұрын
AI voice and script farting out content? No thanks, content farm
@nicholascampbell2824
Жыл бұрын
someone to lazy to actually narrate a video they got a machine to do it thumbs down
@trooperdgb9722
Жыл бұрын
Had you READ the previous comments the need for a replacement voice was perfectly well explained.
@mikeholland1031
Жыл бұрын
Too lazy
@OldMtnGeezer
5 ай бұрын
Yet another robo-voiced, AI scripted vid. Bizarre sentence structure & clumsy delivery. Welcome to the new world. 😝
@johnroscoe2406
9 ай бұрын
AI voice is getting annoying. I wish this fad would stop.
@makschorney2514
Жыл бұрын
It was not that advanced! You want advanced WW1 plane look at the German Junkers j9/D1... an all metal, monoplane fighter!!!
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
I think I'd agree that it wasn't amazingly advanced, but I think it was still quite good, mainly because it was both pretty advanced AND produced on a very large scale, they only built a handful J9s I think
@marknewman2187
Жыл бұрын
1.26 Radial not Rotary,,...😊
@historicalenginering
Жыл бұрын
With respect, I believe you would be incorrect on that point, the Camel was notorious for having a rotary engine, hence the gyroscopic effect causing its fast right hand turn, as referenced in this video. I go into some detail on my video on the Camel as to how its rotary engine works. (kzitem.info/news/bejne/z6iexZ6srWaGp5w) For clarity, a radial engine is one where the cylinders are fixed in a circular shape spinning the propeller in the center, by contrast, a rotary engine, is one where the center of the engine is fixed and the cylinders all spin around it turning the propeller with them
@jollyjohnthepirate3168
Жыл бұрын
Yes rotary. The entire engine turned with the prop. The problem with this was it's tendency to always pull to the right because of torque. The Camel was completely unstable in flight. The pilot could never take their hands off the stick and they had to fly it all the way to the ground when landing. It's instability was a curse to novice pilots but a boon to experienced ones. German pilots hated the Camel because of it's maneuverability. They hated the SE5A because of it's speed.
@johncitizen306
Жыл бұрын
Hahahahaha another clown 😂😂
@snafufubar
Жыл бұрын
I would say the Dolphin was better than the SE5.
@ALA-uv7jq
Жыл бұрын
The SE5 was an average fighter and not developed for good reason a stated. Definitely NOT the best fighter of WW1.
@daviddishon642
Жыл бұрын
They didn’t have a rotary engine in WW1 it was a radial engine
@waynepurcell6058
Жыл бұрын
No. It's a rotary engine. Radial is a configuration; rotary is a mode of FUNCTION. The crankcase and cylinders literally rotate (spin) around a crankshaft that is bolted stationary to the airframe. Don't confuse the rotary engine (developed in the 1890s) with the Wankel engine that was developed some 2+ decades after the "original" rotary.
@johncitizen306
Жыл бұрын
Bahahahahahaha you should delete this idiotic comment
Пікірлер: 166