caldrail

There is also the question of moment/coupling. The Camel would be more sensitive in yaw because of the shorter length between the engine, centre of mass, and fin/rudder. The SE5a was slightly longer in that respect thus was more stable in yaw besides issues of torque and weight distribution.

viking

You are quite right. The concentration of mass about the nose area which was only modified by the fuel tank behind the pilot did account for instability. It was not uncommon for pilots to adjust behaviour by varying the amount of fuel carried.
Another point I should have made was that the SE5a wa not solely responsible for the zoom and climb tactics on the Entente side. The Spad was no nimble machine and relied on power and climb also and was earlier than the SE5a. But the SPAD suffered from the fact that the wing profile meant it was more difficult to land than the SE5a. It was the fairly docile handling characteristics that made the SE5a so successful.

caldrail

Dive and zoom is much earlier. Max Immelmann extended the principle, but of course there were fewer capable aeroplanes in 1915 thus fewer pilots investigated the idea, thus he gets a lot of credit for it (though he probably deserves it)

viking

The reason why I separated turning tactics from zoom is easy to understand. First and most obvious is pilot skill and preference. However pilots fly to the strength and weakness of their machine. Without going through a long list I'll give a few examples of what I mean. The Fokker Dr1 was a turning machine for many because it was slower than most opponents. Von Richthofen claimed "It climbs like a monkey." The Germans knew it's weakness and often fought in a mixed Jasta. The Dr1s would hook the enemy into combat and then it would fall to the Albatros Va's to pick off any one who broke away from the pack by dropping down from above..
An example of turning aircraft rarely used in zooming was the Nieuport range.The Nieuport IIs and N17s would shed a lower wing if dived too enthusiastically but were nimble in tight turns.
Most of the planes Immelmann took on were lumbering BE2c's. The design was so bad the gunner/ observer sat in front of the pilot and had the hindrance of the wings to overcome. It made sense to swoop down on the target. So that was another factor in method of attack. The type of opponent.
There were no simple hard and fast rules, pilots died tht way but the sturdier and faster the plane, the more likely it was to be used in swooping and not turning.

caldrail

In my experience pilots fly according to their need. The strengths and weaknesses of the aeroplane are secondary and in most cases pilots aren't actually aware of them except in some vague sense with a list of prohibitions or restrictions, but even then, once combat begins, the aeroplanes attributes aren't generally on the pilots mind. Rational thought is slow - and the desire to survive an encounter with the enemy requires one to act pretty darn quick.

Of course if it affects a situation before the fight begins, such as gaining superior advantage, the pilot usually has time to consider these things.

As for turn vs swoop, as I mentioned previously, it's entirely circumstantial since the manoever is a response to relative position and open to situational interpretation. I remember a lecture by an F16 veteran in which he told his audience that there was no single correct action for any given situation. What matters is the pilot has awareness of what's happening and reacts advantageously. These are often split second decisions and although the F16 and potential adversaries fly at much greater speed and energy than WW1 aeroplanes, the same dictum applies and in most cases the relative positioning is no different except where superior weaponry and targeting affect decision making.

In terms of sturdiness, there was a chap who was flying aerobatics back in the ninties, either a Christen Eagle or a Pitts Special, something like that. He was experienced, capable, but not trying to prove anything or push the boundary, just flew that day for practice. On return and subsequent inspection he found that three out of four fuselage structural members were cracked. The reason I present that anecdote is that it underlines the assumptions pilots make about the strengths of their aeroplanes.

Virgil

Didn't Von Richtofen and his circus get most of their victories in the albatross?

viking

Short answer Virgil is yes. From memory he flew the Albatros Va

caldrail

Richtofen started on a D.II, then flew a D.III, and breifly while his aeroplane was under repair, a Halberstadt D.III. I know he flew a D.V but I see no mention of D.Va.