Germany win

You think so huh? What brings you to this conclusion?

Tommy schweinhund! Haha, pfffff, 'German' shepherd... We fought on both sides, y'know! ;P

Hmmm, i'll agree with you on the Eindecker series being formidable fighters (Fokker scourge!), and the DH2 certainly was an elegant 'kite' and a worthy opponent until interrupter gear came along.... Buuut i'd still take the F2b instead! ;P

The F2b is undoubtedly the superior aircraft, but there's something about the fragility and primitive nature of the earlier aircraft that resonates with me.

Maybe a great Dane named Moritz would've been a more nuanced choice of pilot, but I stand by my terrible humour.

Haha, fair point! I'll agree that there definitely is something about the primitive nature of early aircraft... The 'uncharted territory' that was early aviation and aircraft design, the power of 80 or up to 110 horses on an airframe made from wood and linen (and also the resulting gyroscopic effects when powered by rotary engines!) with some 'washing line' helping to hold it all together, the fragility of the aircraft and the constant risk of your wings folding (not very good for flight characteristics!), the complete lack of any protection against whoever was trying to shoot at you, the risk of shooting your own prop off if things went wrong... The lack of parachutes... O.O
Not to mention the castor oil used for engine lubrication, a 'total loss' oil system on rotaries, and the unfortunate effects that the castor oil had on the unfortunate pilots (and their pants)! As well as the poor ground crew having to scrub clean oily airframes (if they lasted that long)...
Hmm, maybe there was more logic and thought behind sticking the engine behind the pilot and fuselage than i first thought! XD

Ahh, but for it to be Moritz's aircraft your Fokker would need an extra 2 pairs of wings and a tin of red paint... And a beaver or a moose in a Sopwith Camel chasing his tail! ;3
(And if you don't get that reference, ignoring the controversy around it, then i'll be on your tail instead! Haha! Never change your terrible humour <3 )

I'm afraid I don't get your reference, you'll have to enlighten me.

Despite their flaws, rotary engines were definitely useful for their time. Lightweight and compact, what more could you want (aside from an engine that doesn't kill inexperienced pilots of course!). They must have been challenging to fly, especially considering the lack of a throttle. Just one less way to control your aircraft. As for the structural issues, you wouldn't need the castor oil's assistance if your plane did decide to clap its wings together either.

Ahh, apologies! I was referring to the Canadian pilot who was credited with shooting down 'Der Rote Kampfflieger' Von Richthofen, Roy Brown, although there's much debate about that in some circles (some say that it was a machine gunner on the ground who actually fired the fatal shot) =P

As much as i wouldn't, i would also love to know how a rotary powered aircraft handles and performs! Without the wing clapping, of course... xP
A lucky few have flown originals or replicas (there's a museum over here called the Shuttleworth Collection who have a nice selection of original and replica WW1 aircraft), just watching them from the ground is enough of a thrill! I can imagine it might have been the same for the troops and civilians during those early years...
What today looks like a fragile jumble of wood, wire and danger was once the cutting edge of technology!

Oh, of course! I should have guessed. I was thinking you must have been referring to some piece of media or something like that. As an Aussie I am obliged by national pride to support the claims of the machine gunner. Whatever the case, a good mystery only adds to Richthofen's legend if you ask me.