OT - 1294 "Kills"

[KimberKenobi]

This post makes 1,294 posts... So, how about a history lesson?

Awww, c'mon guys, it won't be that bad! Swear! I'll keep it brief!

The Sopwith F.1 Camel was a famous WWI biplane (the F.1 was a dogfighter, the F.2.1 was a b0mber). It was called the Camel due to the humped fairing over its twin machine guns. The Camel's claim to fame is its maneuverability in flight caused by a high-torque rotary engine. Basically, an engine that is characteristically unstable means that a skilled pilot is better able to evade and tail an enemy. (The most sophisticated planes today have an unstable engine that would throw the plane into deadly flips and spins with extreme G-Force except for the fact that their flight is controlled by a computer that compensates for the instability.) The downside is that many rookies met their death in the Camel, mostly while trying to take off or land. During WWI, 413 pilots died in combat and 385 pilots died from non-combat related causes while flying the Sopwith Camel. Aces managed to score 1,294 victories in the Camel, making it the fighter with the highest count from either side of the war. The Camel was created off of the Sopwith Pup. The Snipe was created off of the Camel (which already used on sea barges) so that there was a smaller aircraft that would be easier to land on the barges.

With 54 victories, Canadian Donald MacLaren scored more victories with the Camel than any other ace.

Any questions? XoD

^=@=^

[Vahagn23]

okay

[BBISHOPPCM]

So is that to say that the Sopwith Camel is... ever victorious?

[Ever Victorious]

So is that to say that the Sopwith Camel is... ever victorious?

Wow... that made my brain hurt.

Well played.

[corpsecorps]

Basically, an engine that is characteristically unstable means that a skilled pilot is better able to evade and tail an enemy.

Well, NO!

I am a Pilot and My dad was an aircraft Engineer and Pilot, so I know something about this.

That was an incredible aircraft. The engine wasn't unstable, the aircraft's layout (weight) was unusual. This Layout of engine, fuel tanks, Pilot, and guns and Ammo all in a small section of the aircraft made it extremely maneuverable and Unforgiving when flying. If it was set up incorrectly or you had the wrong fuel mixture - OUCH.

Here is the Most important thing about the Camel...

The "Red Baron"(Richthofen- the most successful flying ace of World War I, being officially credited with 80 confirmed air combat victories) had been pursuing (at very low altitude) a Sopwith Camel piloted by a novice Canadian pilot, Lieutenant Wilfrid "Wop" May of No. 209 Squadron, Royal Air Force. In turn, the Baron was spotted and briefly attacked by a Camel piloted by a school friend (and flight Commander) of May, Canadian Captain Arthur "Roy" Brown, who had to dive steeply at very high speed to intervene, and then had to climb steeply to avoid hitting the ground. Richthofen turned to avoid this attack, and then resumed his pursuit of May.

During this final stage in Richthofen's pursuit of May that he was hit by a single .303 bullet, which caused such severe damage to his heart and lungs and a speedy death.

The "Vickers machine gun" is the .303 inch machine gun used in tandem on the Camel.

A Sopwith Camel shot down the Red Baron!

[Vahagn23]

the day the Versa flys the day I will believe u

[rwanttaja]

Well, NO!

I am a Pilot and My dad was an aircraft Engineer and Pilot, so I know something about this.

That was an incredible aircraft. The engine wasn't unstable, the aircraft's layout (weight) was unusual. This Layout of engine, fuel tanks, Pilot, and guns and Ammo all in a small section of the aircraft made it extremely maneuverable and Unforgiving when flying. If it was set up incorrectly or you had the wrong fuel mixture - OUCH.

Actually, its layout isn't that much different from many of the planes back then. The root problem was the engine, which was of the rotary type. This isn't a Wankel; rotary engines of the day bolted the crankshaft directly to the firewall AND SPUN THE ENTIRE ENGINE. This helped engine cooling, as the cylinders were always whizzing through the air no matter the speed of the airplane.

Three basic problems with this: The primary one was that the rotation of hundreds of pounds of engine caused tremendous gyroscopic effect. If the pilot of a Camel pulled back on his control stick to climb, the gyro effect would shove the nose hard to the right as well. This could well catch less-experienced pilots off guard.

However... it must be noted that the Camel was not the only airplane using a rotary engine. In fact, several very successful fighters of WWI carried the same engine. The Fokker Triplane carried one, too!

So the Camel's problems weren't solely because of the engine. The problem was, the Camel's aerodynamic design didn't have much stability. The Sopwith Camel wasn't THAT much different than its stablemate, the Sopwith Pup (same engine, same basic configuration). But the Pup had a longer fuselage, which gave it a bit more stability.

Two other problems with the rotary engine a'la WWI: First, since the carburetor was in the stationary part and the cylinders spun, there really wasn't any way to have a throttle. The rotary engine was either full on, or full off. There was a switch (the coupe switch) on the stick that would short out the ignition to kill the engine. The problem was, the engine kept turning...and filling the cylinders with gas. If you waited too long, you'd get one heck of an explosion when you released the coupe switch.

The second problem...oil was fed to the cylinders the same way, and there was no way to pump the oil back to the center tank. So the oil would flow outward as the engine spun and the centrifugal force would fling it off the end of the cylinders. The airstream would splatter a faint mist all over the pilot's face. Bad enough, but petrochemical oils of the era couldn't tolerate the low temperatures at high altitude...so they used CASTOR OIL. Which, of course, acted as huge laxative to the pilots.

One hopes that this isn't the source of Kimber's V's nickname... :-)

Here is the Most important thing about the Camel...

The "Red Baron"(Richthofen- the most successful flying ace of World War I, being officially credited with 80 confirmed air combat victories) had been pursuing (at very low altitude) a Sopwith Camel piloted by a novice Canadian pilot, Lieutenant Wilfrid "Wop" May of No. 209 Squadron, Royal Air Force. In turn, the Baron was spotted and briefly attacked by a Camel piloted by a school friend (and flight Commander) of May, Canadian Captain Arthur "Roy" Brown, who had to dive steeply at very high speed to intervene, and then had to climb steeply to avoid hitting the ground. Richthofen turned to avoid this attack, and then resumed his pursuit of May.

During this final stage in Richthofen's pursuit of May that he was hit by a single .303 bullet, which caused such severe damage to his heart and lungs and a speedy death.

The "Vickers machine gun" is the .303 inch machine gun used in tandem on the Camel.

A Sopwith Camel shot down the Red Baron!

Better not let one of our Aussie friends hear you say that. That .303 round was the standard machine gun round for both ground AND air forces. Several anti-aircraft gunners of an Australian infantry unit had been shooting at the Baron, too. From what I've read, it's more likely they did the deed.

Here's a video of me getting "pipper burns" from a buddy in a biplane...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf3QEsHWkjA

Ron

[corpsecorps]

Actually, its layout isn't that much different from many of the planes back then...

...it must be noted that the Camel was not the only airplane using a rotary engine. In fact, several very successful fighters of WWI carried the same engine...

So the Camel's problems weren't solely because of the engine. The problem was, the Camel's aerodynamic design didn't have much stability. The Sopwith Camel wasn't THAT much different than its stablemate, the Sopwith Pup (same engine, same basic configuration). But the Pup had a longer fuselage, which gave it a bit more stability.

Ron

Is this just Vague or a Contradiction?

Please tell me what your Point is?

The Rotary engine was a common engine for fighters at that time. Most aircraft didnt have the extreme problem that the Camel had, WHY?

The camel had a similar set up? (Yes, engine, fuel , guns, ammo, pilot).

What was Unusual was that it was Short and everything was Closely clustered around the CG. Add the engine rotation with this very particular Setup and you got the camel.

This may seem Minor to you but it made the aircraft, for all its Faults, Great.

As for the Aussies on the grassy knoll, we will never know.

[rwanttaja]

Is this just Vague or a Contradiction?

Please tell me what your Point is?

Merely that one can't point at just aspect of a design and credit/blame everything on it. The Camel could turn tightly (in ONE direction...) because of the rotary engine. Tight grouping of the weighty bits helped, but other planes had similar grouping (notice the Nieuports). It looks like the Camel's biggest failing was an aft CG, a condition which improves manueverability but can cause other handling issues. The Camel was obsolescent by mid-1918, and its successor, the Snipe had a similar configuration but managed to fix most of the handling problems.

As far as the Red Baron, the bullet that killed him entered from the side. Tough to manage, when you're shooting at someone from behind.

Ron

[corpsecorps]

As far as the Red Baron, the bullet that killed him entered from the side. Tough to manage, when you're shooting at someone from behind.

Ron

I agree about the Camel.

I saw your video, so I know you fly.Have you Ever sat in any aircraft and never turned around to see behind you?now imagine if you were trying to find a flyer behind you shooting at you, Do you turn in your seat?

Brown, shoot Three bursts (one long initial and two short later) so maybe?We will Never know.

How do like ABS?

[Ever Victorious]

I don't claim to be any sort of WWI historian by any means, but I remember a couple years ago watching a History Channel special on the Red Baron, and they tried to replicate both the dogfight and the anti-aircraft fire from the ground.

The net result of the test was that it was almost certain that a ground-based machine gun was the fatal blow.

(but, as corpsecorps said, we may never know)

[mahout]

You left out the most important: Snoopy piloted a Sopworth.

[BBISHOPPCM]

We could also try our own "re-enactment" using Kimber's Versa with a roof-mounted an AK-47, and a red Chrysler LeBaron.

[KimberKenobi]

Wow, I love the response... I figured this wouldn't start any discussion... I was pleasantly surprised!

So is that to say that the Sopwith Camel is... ever victorious?

Well, NO!

I am a Pilot and My dad was an aircraft Engineer and Pilot, so I know something about this.

That was an incredible aircraft. The engine wasn't unstable, the aircraft's layout (weight) was unusual. This Layout of engine, fuel tanks, Pilot, and guns and Ammo all in a small section of the aircraft made it extremely maneuverable and Unforgiving when flying. If it was set up incorrectly or you had the wrong fuel mixture - OUCH.

Much like a real camel, this aircraft could turn and bite you. Noted for its tendency to kill inexperienced flyers, many pilots feared its vicious spin characteristics. Until sufficient speed was developed during takeoff, Camel pilots maintained full right rudder to counteract the torque the rotary engine. Failure to do so often resulted in a ground loop with the Camel crashing on its starboard wingtip.

The Camel had a lot of rotary torque (thank you, rwanttaja) which made the Camel tougher to turn... (let me clarify... it wasn't difficult to turn, but you had to make compensations for either direction that you turned in order to keep from stalling the engine or entering into a spin... I'll try and find my resource for this and quote the actual text... I'm just not sure which book it is that covers this in the best detail...) The higher hp of the engine in the Camel (there were four different engines used), in combination with the fact that it was shorter and had a smaller wingspan than the Pup plus the weight distribution helped to make this a plane to "turn and bite you" (I really like that phrase).

I also was watching an aircraft special (this was several years ago) and they were talking about one of the newer (at the time) fighters in which the engine had unstable characteristics which randomly would throw the plane about if it weren't for the fact that all the directional adjustments were made by a computer which could keep the plane flying straight... but since the plane would essentially just throw itself about randomly without the careful control of the computer, it made the plane must more maneuverable and respond faster to maneuvers made by the pilot... That's not a highly technical explanation, but it was quite awhile ago.. I've been into WWI aviation and aircraft in general for a large portion of my life...

The "Vickers machine gun" is the .303 inch machine gun used in tandem on the Camel.

Let us not forget that later Camels were equipped with a Lewis gun on the top wing instead of the Vicker's.

A Sopwith Camel shot down the Red Baron!

Which is why Snoopy refers to his doghouse as a Sopwith Camel while he is being the "Flying Ace"...

One hopes that this isn't the source of Kimber's V's nickname... :-)

Well, aren't you just a wealth of information! Maybe you should come with me to the League of WWI Aviation Historians meeting I'm going to in April... XoP It's really not a bad drive across practically the entire continent... I mean, I made it in 50 hours... ROFL!

How do like ABS?

If this is a reference to the other thread... I'm entitled to my opinion and I spoke my peace there, we don't need to bring it over into other threads.

You left out the most important: Snoopy piloted a Sopworth.

As I mentioned above, Snoopy actually refers to his doghouse as a Camel. Sometimes this is the easiest way to explain my car. People know and like Peanuts, people don't always care about abstract aircraft from a mostly-forgotten war.

We could also try our own "re-enactment" using Kimber's Versa with a roof-mounted an AK-47, and a red Chrysler LeBaron.

If I ever own a second vehicle, I want it to be red and have the plate "FOKKER"

That would make me happy.

Thanks to all of you who made this thread into an actual discussion!!

[rwanttaja]

I agree about the Camel.

I saw your video, so I know you fly.Have you Ever sat in any aircraft and never turned around to see behind you?now imagine if you were trying to find a flyer behind you shooting at you, Do you turn in your seat?

Certainly, but not far enough so my whole side faces aft. I twist the body a bit, but turn my head a lot more.

More comments on one of the other responses in this thread....

Your Avatar looks like a '64 or '65 150; my first plane was a 1965 Cessna 150E.

Ron

[rwanttaja]

I don't claim to be any sort of WWI historian by any means, but I remember a couple years ago watching a History Channel special on the Red Baron, and they tried to replicate both the dogfight and the anti-aircraft fire from the ground.

The net result of the test was that it was almost certain that a ground-based machine gun was the fatal blow.

(but, as corpsecorps said, we may never know)

I saw that, I think it was an episode of the series "Unsolved History."

I thought it was excellently done, but felt the method used to show that Brown COULDN'T be the shooter was weak. They took some experienced small-aircraft pilots, let them practice with a Camel simulator for a couple of hours, then set the simulation up with them in Brown's place chasing the Baron.

They made a big deal about how hard the Camel was to fly (true), and they stated that since their modern pilots couldn't get a bead on the Baron, Brown couldn't have either. But just because the simulator pilots were experienced modern-aircraft pilots didn't mean they'd be able to sit right into a Sopwith Camel and fly it with the skill of a successful wartime pilot!

Otherwise, though, I thought the show was pretty good. For the Aussie ground gunners, they used experienced machine-gunners pointing lasers that simulated the drop and dispersion of the machine guns used that day, and had them wear tinted goggles that would not let them aim by watching where the laser went. Then they flew a small aircraft (Avions Robin, I think) along the same path the Baron flew, with the gunners in the same position.

The eeriest scene was showing the plane flying, and seeing an occasional flicker of the laser on the tail or wing. Then, just before the guy stopped "shooting," there was a solid laser flash right on the cabin...just the place where they say the bullet entered that killed the Baron.

Ron

[corpsecorps]

Let us not forget that later Camels were equipped with a Lewis gun on the top wing instead of the Vicker's.

Now Smarty pants (Kimber) why did they have to stick the Lewis guns up on top?

[corpsecorps]

Your Avatar looks like a '64 or '65 150; my first plane was a 1965 Cessna 150E. Ron

It was the only 150 avatar i could find, I think you are correct Sir!omni visionsquare tail

I would like a lot more plane, but I can afford this without shares. My dad and I do all the work, he loves it and I am the Best Gofer in the World. I have been his 30+ years.

We used to fly and work on his old T-6 Trainer (I loved that plane).

Hey its been fun talking planes!

[rwanttaja]

Now Smarty pants (Kimber) why did they have to stick the Lewis guns up on top?

'Cause it looked darned silly on the bottom?

The SE-5A had a Vickers gun in front of the pilot and a Lewis gun on the top wing. The Lewis on the top wing was on a sort of track that let the pilot pull it back towards him to change the drum on top.

As the Lewis ended up pointing up at about a 60-degree angle, many pilots used this feature to get UNDER enemy aircraft and shoot up at them without having to pull away at the last minute. The Germans used the same concept in their night fighters in WWII, they called it schrage musik (jazz music).

The other factor is that guns mounted on the fuselage need to be connected to the interruptor gear to ensure they don't shoot the prop off. Putting a Lewis gun atop the wing gets around this.

Ron

[rwanttaja]

The Camel had a lot of rotary torque (thank you, rwanttaja) which made the Camel tougher to turn... (let me clarify... it wasn't difficult to turn, but you had to make compensations for either direction that you turned in order to keep from stalling the engine or entering into a spin...

No, but close: The torque made the airplane very easy to turn...to the left! With all that weight spinning in one direction, the plane was VERY happy to start spinning in the other. An experienced pilot could take advantage of this to make the plane turn really tightly.

When startled, pilots tend to turn left, so if a Camel jumped a Hun, the German pilot's instincts put him right in the envelope where the Brit could turn inside him and blast him away. Even if the German was flying a rotary-engined plane himself, the Camel could probably still out-turn it.

However... if the German was experienced and recognized that the plane behind him was a Camel, he'd turn RIGHT. The Sopwith didn't turn to the right as well, and it's likely the German could slip away. IIRC, that's exactly what Richtofen did when Brown attacked.

I also was watching an aircraft special (this was several years ago) and they were talking about one of the newer (at the time) fighters in which the engine had unstable characteristics which randomly would throw the plane about if it weren't for the fact that all the directional adjustments were made by a computer which could keep the plane flying straight... but since the plane would essentially just throw itself about randomly without the careful control of the computer, it made the plane must more maneuverable and respond faster to maneuvers made by the pilot...

It sounds like you saw a program about the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The airplane was DESIGNED to be unstable, because it could then enter maneuvers faster. Only the computer makes it flyable at all...the pilot tells the computer what he wants the plane to do, and the computer moves the control surfaces to make the plane follow the pilot's wishes.

And you've really hit on the main nugget, Kimber: Up until the modern computer era, the qualities that make a good DOGFIGHTING aircraft traditionally made made them rather ugly to fly. Stable airplanes (planes that fly in the direction you point them without having to continuously correct them) make lousy fighters, as their very stability makes them slower to enter a violent combat maneuver. The Camel had horrible stability; this made it more difficult for new pilots to survive their first few flights, but once a pilot learned how to fly it, he could outmaneuver practically anything.

If he lived that long, of course.

Many modern pilots dream of building or buying a replica WWI airplane, but they're often disappointed in how lousy these airplanes are to actually fly. Guy I know owned several airplanes, including a replica Fokker Triplane (with a stationary engine, not a rotary). He only flew the Fokker a couple of times every year (to local airshows), because he could never relax and just have fun flying in it. It had no yaw stability, the cockpit was uncomfortably drafty, and it was blind forward when landing (center wing blocked the view of the runway).

But oh, yeah...it could turn.

I've seen the same thing work in cars. For years, my Dad talked about buying a Ford Model T just like the one he had as a kid. Finally, he bought one...and was quickly reminded that it really WASN'T that much fun to have to start the car with a crank, fiddle with the spark advance to make it run, deal with a steering gear right out of a buggy, and stop the darn things using mechanical brakes like a bicycle. He didn't keep it for long. He bought a Model A, which was a lot closer to a modern car.

My own plane may LOOK like a relic of the Great War, but it was designed about 50 years later. It has the open cockpit and the bracing wires, but is pretty stable and has a nice comfortable cockpit.



It just has this appalling shortage of Vickers guns....

If I ever own a second vehicle, I want it to be red and have the plate "FOKKER"

Only if you insist on saying it correctly: It's pronounced "Fawk-er," not "Folk-er" As in, "Those Fokkers were Messerschmits!" :-)

Ron

[rwanttaja]

It was the only 150 avatar i could find, I think you are correct Sir!omni visionsquare tail

2008 SL Sedan 6spd1967 Cessna 1501990 Honda NX650

Shoot, dood, have a '67 Avatar on me:



(Right click to save)

Ron

[KimberKenobi]

It would be awesome if I could afford lessons... Bowman Field (in Louisville) has props for the flight club... I'm too tired today to add anything competent or intelligent at this point in time... So I'm going to bed.