Those pilots really, REALLY had balls. The original "Knights of the Air".
@WynnofThule
2 жыл бұрын
The fact that the Fokker DR1 is 4th but the Sopwith Triplane isn't even on the list is criminal. The Triplane was so good that the Fokker was supposed to be it's copy.
@johnp8131
Жыл бұрын
Was the Dr1 really that good? Or was it the they were mostly flown by highly experience German "Experten" pilots? You have to ask, how often we hear of a relative novice flying one that doesn't already have a handful of kills?
@brokeandtired
10 ай бұрын
I don't think any DVII except in a steep dive did 160mph+, Also no later DVIII or better than Fokker DVII...faster climbing Siemens-Schuckert D.IV planes? And no Sopwith Snipe?...The Spads and Camel make sense...Though you literally blipped past the SE5a picture without saying anything about it.
@sarnnox
3 жыл бұрын
Correction: The top speed of the Fokker DVII was not 165mph, it was more like 125-130mph. Also, 189kmh is not 165mph if you did the math properly.
@taiyowest9495
3 жыл бұрын
at last some one, man i do not agree with this list
@bluestorm3628
2 жыл бұрын
I just don’t understand the logic on the number two, I mean that’s not a fighter and it serially is not better Thant the overs in the top five or the hole ten?
@briandaws9186
11 ай бұрын
The Fokker DV11 is usually quoted at 116/ 117 mph in most books and general knowledge of the aircraft, where they have got 165 mph from is any bodies guess.
@brokeandtired
10 ай бұрын
Only DVII doing 165mph is one pulling a near vertical drive. And his wings are near being ripped off.
@davidg.williams9464
Жыл бұрын
The DH4 was not a fighter or pursuit aircraft ;try the Bristol F2b(the Brisfit) A mean machine!
@Charlie_Ses
Жыл бұрын
It's not totally clear why the planes are ranked in the order they are? What makes no.1 the best of the rest?
@andrezkamotu
11 ай бұрын
It's a nonsens. A second-placed D.H.4 was not even a fighter... So, where is Bristol F.2b Fighter instead?
@wdtaut5650
Ай бұрын
Just what I was thinking.
@archimedesfromteamfortress2
7 ай бұрын
How was the Bristol f2 not here? That thing was an absolute beast, a highly agile and maneuverable fighter with a tailgunner, that also could function as a bomber. It was a fighter, recon, bomber all at once, and it was so good it continued seeing service up until the early *_1930'S_* !
@ChandranPrema123
3 жыл бұрын
Imagine how difficult it was being a pilot during those days. Plane being made of wood. A plane slower than 200kmph An open roof And no heat insulation like today's aircraft's.
@felix25ize
3 жыл бұрын
And no parachute and ejectable seat ... oopss ...
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
Only a few km/h between maximum speed and stall speed, making it easy to stall in turns. Wings could be torn off if over-stressed. Hard to see through oil covered goggles. Fire a constant risk and almost certain death. No oxygen above 10,000 ft. Risk of disease.
@deeperinsider2544
2 жыл бұрын
and giant steel balls
@nathandeleo3244
2 жыл бұрын
No instruments either to tell you what the aircraft is doing
@spacecatgaming3304
Жыл бұрын
nah m8 there was heat. it called sticking ur hands on the engine cowling and hoping for the best
@Wikingersohn93
2 жыл бұрын
Your numbers are all over the place. Sopwith Pup: Top speed is in the video for the time, powerplant and airframe really high: 180 kph (wikipedia states a much more plausible 171 kph) The Albatros DVa didn't have 200hp but only 185hp. Choosing the Albatros DV over the DIII ist strange as the DIII was the one that held aerial supremacy during the "bloody april" whilst the DV was seen as a downgrade from the DIII by many pilots and underperformed compared to contemporary allied designs. Also the Fokker EIII is definitely missing as it was responsible for the so called "Fokker scourge" being absolutely unapposed for quite some time until allied stop gap measures like the DH2 and the Nieuport 11 arrived on the battlefield.
@13stalag13
8 ай бұрын
Actually, the D-Va DID equip the 200hp Mercedes engine, starting around April 1918.
@stevea2685
9 ай бұрын
the problem with articles like these is, when you show a WWII M3 Stuart light tank (@ 0.37 seconds) in a program about WWI you immediately lose any validity you might have had.
@RamJetJockey
2 жыл бұрын
Fokker D7 was by far #1 to the point that their required destruction was a key item in the demilitarization of Germany.
@zacharyradford5552
Жыл бұрын
They weren’t all destroyed they had 770 estimated after the war 130 or something like was given “taken” by the allies.
@Kneedragon1962
11 ай бұрын
Not wishing to argue with you, but I am a little curious what criteria you used for ranking these. For example, I would rate a Fokker D7 a long LONG way ahead of pretty much any other actual pursuit or combat aircraft of the war. There is no way on god's green Earth an Airco DH4 is a better aircraft than a D7. If we're going on number of kills, then I thought the top was the Sopwith Camel ~ mostly because there were a lot of them. I could see the case for a Bristol Fighter, which remained in active service in the RAF long after WW1 was over, but ...
@barryslemmings31
11 ай бұрын
The Airco DH 4 was not a fighter. The only effective Allied two-seater fighter was the Bristol F2b known as the 'Biff'. It was an effective fighter with one pilot achieving 30 kills with the front gun. There were several F2b 'aces'.
@kenjohnston8173
3 жыл бұрын
Albatross d5 was not so good, the d3 series 253 was the best albatross
@kenjohnston8173
3 жыл бұрын
The astro Hungarian d3 series 253 had top speed 125mph with a 225 hp engine
@seank9846
5 ай бұрын
Who came up this list? Fokker D VII is the best fighter during WWI. Period!
@randomdeadpool
3 жыл бұрын
Western Front, April 21, 1918 A red Fokket Dr. 1 takes to the sky, and the pilot is a legend.... """"Man and machine and nothing there in between A flying circus and a man from Prussia The sky and a plane, this man commands his domain The western front and all the way to Russia…""""
@legionarpublius6342
11 ай бұрын
What a nonsensical sequence. Who compares single-seaters with two-seaters? Where are Nieuport 17c, Fokker E III, Sopwith Snipe, SSW D III, DH 4 or Albatros D III? You can also compare based on engines, maneuverability, handling, product numbers and popularity.
@johnnyz8791
3 жыл бұрын
Im smiling looking at them as ancestors to ww2 fighters like bf-109 or spitfire series
@paulhemmings9245
Күн бұрын
Well at least the pictures corresponded with the aircraft named ! The Camel repaced the Pup to combat the Albatros,so why is the Pup above the Albatros ? Though I think it was a decent plane for 1916. Both Camel and Se 5 where supposed to be superior to the Spad. As mentioned by others the DH 4 was top aircraft ? a bomber I think. Anyway the Bristol Fighter should have been included rather than the DH 4. Some historians say the Fokker D7 was the best fighter,this did get a place on the list. So nice try but no cigar !
@nigelvonkoechel8271
Жыл бұрын
Albatross - Austria - get your facts right
@hughjohnson2674
6 ай бұрын
Bristol Fighter!….DH 9.
@donaldsmith1055
4 ай бұрын
To be one of the top 10 fighters the aircraft needs to stand out from other aircraft at their time either with an outstanding record or being a ground breaking design setting a new standard. There are several aircraft that meat the above that are not on this list. Morane-Sauliner Type N, Fokker EI/EIV, AMC DH2, and Sopwith Triplane as a few examples. The SPAD XIII is basically the SPAD VII with more horse power and 2 machine guns so one of them should not be on the list. The Airco DH4 was not a fighter so having it on the list opens the door for other aircraft in their fields like the RAF FE 2b, Roland CII, Gotha G1, Handley Page Type 0 and Bristol F.2b. Who ever made the list needs to do more research then just grabbing top names from the second half of the war. WW1 saw at a minimum 6 generations of aircraft development in just 5 years. Average production life span of an aircraft design was less then 6 months before it was obsolete due to upgrades are a new design. Oberleutnant Ernst Udet flu at least 5 top of the line new designs from 1915 to 1918 not counting upgrades.
@unscathedpilot6249
3 жыл бұрын
Good video but maybe move the microphone back a tad lol I only noticed it once in a while but with headphones on sometimes breathing in the Mic is loud
@jpmtlhead39
2 жыл бұрын
Might be a cliché, but i love the Fokker triplane of the "Red Baron".
@zacharyradford5552
Жыл бұрын
Literally the plane he had the least success in.
@jpmtlhead39
Жыл бұрын
@@zacharyradford5552 nevertheless the One that everyone knows that is the Red Baron One . Its an icon.
@brokeandtired
10 ай бұрын
@@zacharyradford5552 Still beautiful though. And it wasn't a bad plane. Richthofen's was by the time of his was death, struggling with health issues from a prior injury to the skull in 1917. His health and luck had simply run out.
@marksummers463
2 жыл бұрын
The SPAD, theDR1,&the Albatros were the best looking.
@johnp8131
Жыл бұрын
To be fair, it was a bit like a game of leap frog, first one was good and then a better one came along. The DVII had a reputation and was superb, however the British alone had superior models like the Sopwith Snipe coming through in late 1918. The DR1 was only half decent due to the pilots that were given them? The DH4 at no 2 is a joke as it was not a fighter, probably should be the F2B Bristol Fighter which was used well into the twenties. Numbers 1 and 2 on the list, I suggest are only there because they were used for "five minutes" at the end of the war by the Americans.
@neganlucille9950
3 жыл бұрын
What is the best fighter planes in ww2?
@itzmrman3574
3 жыл бұрын
Spitfire or p51
@felix25ize
3 жыл бұрын
@@itzmrman3574 Corsair
@ironfelixfromkuban2580
3 жыл бұрын
@@itzmrman3574 P51? Are you joking?
@rxfclaymore8782
3 жыл бұрын
Spitfire
@1515327E
2 жыл бұрын
Spitfire
@lightinggameozo2402
3 жыл бұрын
any italian or austrohungarian aircraft?
@ironfelixfromkuban2580
3 жыл бұрын
Or Russian, or American
@leosimon241
10 ай бұрын
@@ironfelixfromkuban2580 American or Russian fighter aircraft in ww1 ? Dont really know what you are talking about... Bioth of them used mainly French aircraft and a few British planes.
@leosimon241
10 ай бұрын
Italy did not really build any fighter during ww1, they mostly had French fighter. And Austro-Hungary did produce some fighter aircraft; but in a really low quantity and most of their fighter wings flew on German planes.
@JoeSmith-vs5sy
Жыл бұрын
Need bigger pictures
@johnp8131
Жыл бұрын
I not surprised about no's one and two on the list. No doubt both excellent but the best? Both used by the US military very late on when they joined so most likely an uninformed or biased view. If the DH4 is number two the F2B should be higher but the US struggled to re-engine it with their own unlike the DH 4.
@xdaniel1162
3 жыл бұрын
Lol intro just makes me scared
@raulconty7229
3 жыл бұрын
Do WW2 fighter planes
@No.10_SopwithMan
2 жыл бұрын
It's funny how all the aircraft bios are just copied and pasted from wikipedia.
@carlosdheureux5084
8 ай бұрын
i dont think 'biggles' will agree with you no way is the camel at number 7
@piait.yunususkywatcher2977
Жыл бұрын
Aero technology is very far away according to its evolution
@lalruatdikavarte7943
3 жыл бұрын
Nice video and very informative and very entertaining and very satisfaction more videos.
@madmax6007
3 жыл бұрын
Omg! Where is the eindecker?
@medwayhospitalprotest
9 ай бұрын
Ha ha I also left this comment, you must have watched Wings. Me too. 😁 The damn h U n monoplane!
@shaziasiddiqui8807
3 жыл бұрын
hi buzz
@TransAmDrifter
2 жыл бұрын
Those planes should've been equipped with automatic shotguns instead of machineguns. The pilots were the most vulnerable part of the plane, so a cloud of buckshots would've been more likely to hit them.
@calebpepper3834
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah if you don’t blow your propeller off first. Lmao 🤣 Also it’s easier to predict a machine gun than a shotgun so as it doesn’t hit the propeller.
@TransAmDrifter
2 жыл бұрын
@@calebpepper3834 synchronizer won't allow to hit the propeller.
@prasannaa7211
3 жыл бұрын
Is this re uploaded
@sahanhasaranga4355
3 жыл бұрын
Hi oya lankawe nedha ?
@madmax6007
3 жыл бұрын
Is the fokker eindecker at the maldives?
@sheereenaali8448
3 жыл бұрын
No
@sheereenaali8448
3 жыл бұрын
And how'd u even think of that?
@madmax6007
3 жыл бұрын
@@sheereenaali8448 cuz it was one of the best ww1 fighters
@madmax6007
3 жыл бұрын
@@sheereenaali8448 i suppose You are "the voice" 😉
@madmax6007
3 жыл бұрын
Why You are so aggresive? What's the problem?
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
This is BS. Anyone can read a data block on Wikipedia and pretend they’re an expert. The D.VII was the best of WWI.
@felix25ize
3 жыл бұрын
Spad XIII
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
@@felix25ize The SPAD XIII didn’t really change anything. The Fokker D.VII did. It was even named in the Versailles treaty.
@wattana62
3 жыл бұрын
Hi, In fact what is really BS at the end, it's to say this plane is the best or this one... The Fokker D.VII was an exceptionnal aircraft so as the SPAD XIII. I have to disagree on the fact you've said that the D.VII change something. The air superiority was achieved by the allied. The D.VII was issued in service in april 1918, it was almost the end for Germany, This plane was not that far superior to trouble the end of the war by given back air superiory to Germany. And no the D.VII was not mentionned in the treaty of Versailles, it's a myth. He was mentionned is the armistice agreement signed in 1918 at Rethondes, France. Article A.IV : [Abandonment by the German armies of the following war material, in good condition: 5,000 guns (including 2,500 heavy and 2,500 field), 25,000 machine guns, 3000 minenwerfers, 1,700 fighters and bombardment planes, in the first place all D.VII and all night bombardment planes, to be delivered on site to Allied and United States troops, under the detailed conditions set out in appendix no. 1, adopted at the time of the signing of the armistice] Of course it was german material mentionned, it was war retribution so the losing part given something. And of course it was the last fighter which was asked so the most interesting to have from the german army... Why would have they demand "obsolete" stuff ? Are many consider the D.VII the best of WWI ? Yes sure, as for others it's the SPAD XIII which was the one to rule the sky in France. As anything, both planes had their pros and cons and both were state of the art by WWI standard
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
@@wattana62 The Sopwith Camel achieved more than the SPAD XIII.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
@@wattana62 The D.VII was a new level of engineering. It employed no bracing wires because it had an enormously strong structure. It possessed good speed, excellent rate of climb, good armament and excellent manoeuvrability. In most respects, it was more than a match for anything the Allies could throw at it, including the SPAD XIII. SPADs belonged to an earlier generation, though they were still a pretty formidable opponent. You are right that their appearance was after the German peak and this limited their effectiveness. But as a piece of engineering, they represented a new direction.
@patwilson2546
4 ай бұрын
This list id really, ummm, interesting 1. SPAD XIII. Why, because Americans flew it? It was a good aircraft but not a world beater. 2. DH4. You're kidding, right? It wasn't even a fighter. Did you mean Bristol F2b? 3. Fokker D.VII. This was thew actual best fighter 4. Fokker DRI. Why, because von RIchthofen got killed in one? 5, SPAD VII. An excellent plane but ... 6. SE5a. Most of the top British aces flew this plane while not suffering terrible losses. This should be your #2. 7. Camel. This one killed as many of its own pilots as Germans 8. Sopwith Pup. Good aircraft, but better than the Albatros? And more impactful than the N17, which isn't even on this list? 9. Albatros DV. The DV was a disappointment. It was the D.II and D.III that were so successful. 10. N11. OK
@tristan7178
2 жыл бұрын
And what about France Russia austria-Hongrie Italy ottoman empire .... Why juste England and Germany France and Russia (separetly kill more ennemis than England)
@nathancasciano3398
Жыл бұрын
T'inquiète on a la première position avec le SPAD XIII
@cpj93070
Жыл бұрын
Wrong, get your facts right.
@ironfelixfromkuban2580
3 жыл бұрын
Where is the Russian Sikorsky S-20 and S-22 fighters? Lenght 6.5 m, weight 750/1030 kg, armament 1-2 7.62 or 7.7 mm MGs, engine 120 hp Rhone / 150 hp Salmson, ceiling 5600/6200 m, time of flight 2.3 hours, speed 190/205 kmph.
@kv2315
2 жыл бұрын
SO MUCH MISINFORMATION
@pheaktra_
3 жыл бұрын
World wuar 1 -Buzz narrator
@sanchitmehta6513
3 жыл бұрын
You gave my comment heart and then you deleted. Why ❓❓
@maximilian8594
2 жыл бұрын
Fokker was the best plane
@subaru22b18
2 жыл бұрын
War papers
@trvebm7812
3 жыл бұрын
Eurpeans till date have a staunch rivalry. Very unstable region.
@MBCGRS
4 ай бұрын
Stupidest list ever...
@j.helvie6563
2 жыл бұрын
rotary engine??? RAIDIAL engine...
@johndoherty9387
2 жыл бұрын
Nope. It was a rotary engine. The engine spun, the crankshaft was stationary.
@j.helvie6563
2 жыл бұрын
@@johndoherty9387 Well ,the engine block assembly did indeed rotate & the crank was stationary.... It was not a rotary engine, it's a radial piston engine. see kzitem.info/news/bejne/pGyuvmSwjKihaqw
@waynepurcell6058
Жыл бұрын
You are wrong. Radial is a configuration, rotary is a method of operation. Felix Millet patented the rotary engine in the 1890's, and it was patented AS a rotary engine. Rotary engine literally means "spinning engine". The cylinders and crankcase spun around the crankcase which was bolted stationary to the airframe. A rotaty engine WILL NOT OPERATE UNLESS IT ROTATES, hence the "rotary" terminology.
@gordonherring2055
Жыл бұрын
@@j.helvie6563 Engine block does NOT rotate on radial engines, only on rotary engines. Rotary engines use the mass of the engine block to dampen the vibration caused by the pistons; radial engines use a counterweight for that purpose and the flywheel does that for conventional engines. Rotary engines were developed in 1896 to be light weight engines by eliminating the flywheel.
@dr.nandishpurli4074
3 жыл бұрын
Chinese are 21at Century Colonial Traders.... like European countries how they are any different?
@mustafakhan1872
3 жыл бұрын
I am no 9
@bobtranquilli9985
6 ай бұрын
Weak script and narration
@jarredferreras704
3 жыл бұрын
No USA????
@sigma_frenchie4075
2 жыл бұрын
the us barely had an army back then
@albertobonnet1773
2 жыл бұрын
Americans were playing banjoo music back then
@67Ice
Жыл бұрын
please keep your right place ... at kitchen
@medwayhospitalprotest
9 ай бұрын
What a horrible comment. As any woman knows, the eindecker was the best. I can cook, clean AND know what the finest plane in WW1 was.
Пікірлер: 131