You make good points, on both sides of the pilot account issue. MJ
Bottom quote was from this thread: SE5a v. DVIIF flight models
You need to understand that when there is physical data to back up any anecdotal account then it becomes a lot more trustworthy than what would otherwise be the case.
One shouldn't take anecdotal accounts alone as gospel, there needs to be something that can back up a story before you should start considering it as being the truth.
And when comes to the aircraft listed here, there is plenty of both physical data and anecdotal accounts that points to them as being a lot faster than they are currently portrayed in ROF.
Edit: Added 134 mph
I don't think anyone (not even me) is saying to take anecdotal evidence alone as gospel BUT it can help indicate certain FM tendencies and taken together with hard data, should help to provide a more authentic FM.
Most definitely, I agree.
I definitely think that the 180 hp Abatros machines are too slow, based on accounts and other information I have read over the past several years. I also have no doubt that the Camel is too fast, relative to the 180 hp Albatros. The Albatros should have a decided speed advantage over the Camel and the opposite is the case, atm. I do not believe that the DR1 was a faster machine, as the DR1 was the one machine that the historical F1 Camel had the ability to catch and her engine was notorious for deteriorating in performance within tens of hours of operation, as was the case with the Camel, from declassified information provided on this forum, sometime ago. Now, the DVIIf is an interesting case. I do not believe that it is conclusive that the DVIIf was faster than a SPAD XIII, at sea level, in straight and level flight, certainly not a late war model, anyway. Even snipe pilots considered the DVII, without regard to variant, as an inferior plane type when compared to their Snipe machines; the plane that gave 1917 performance, in 1918:
George Jones another Australian wrote in a post-war staff college report;
"The Squadron[4 Sqn AFC] was equipped, in the first instance, with Clerget Camels and it continued to use this type until eight weeks before the Armistice, when it was re-equipped with Sopwith Snipe. It was, I believe, the second Squadron to receive them, and is therefore one of the few Squadrons which enjoyed their superiority over the Fokker D7."
Now, if the DVII came in a variant that could outrun a properly operating SPAD 13, a plane that, by that time, could go 134 mph to 140 mph, at sea level, in straight and level flight, would Snipe pilots be so boastful? I am not so sure. Now, is Goering claiming that the DVIIf could go faster than 134 mph, 137 mph or 140 mph, at sea level? Anyone have an exacting replica of the DVIIf able to go over 134 mph, 137 mph or 140 mph, in straight and level flight, at sea level? Any DVII replica, with any engine type, historical or otherwise, capable of going over 134 mph, 137 mph or 140 mph, in straight and level flight, at sea level? Any Central Powers official tests that demonstrate a DVIIf going over 134 mph, 137 mph or 140 mph, in straight and level flight, at sea level? I am not so sure of such a claim.
p.s. Let us remember that a Snipe, a plane comparable to a BR1 Camel, in speed terms, at sea level, could escape a DVII, by some means. Did the DVII pilots attacking Barker, on October 27th 1918, let Barker escape, after repeatedly trying to kill Barker or did Barker pull away from his attackers, due to a speed advantage, at lower altitudes? [How do you know that the DVIIs had DVIIfs among them, that the Central pilots did not let Barker go, etc…!] Well, how do we know that the SPADs did not have damage or that the SPAD pilots were under orders not to fight the enemy on the level or that the SPAD pilots were under instructions not to run off, chasing after EA, but to stick together. etc. The same sort of doubts and issues, raised in the Barker example, can be raised with the claim by Goering.