Sopwith Camel Question

[James]

Hey all,

I was wondering how good an aircraft was the Sopwith Camel? I know it is hugely popular/known by the public as it was once thought , was the aircraft piloted by Roy Brown that shot down the Red Baron and also what Snoopy flies. I know the Fokker Eindekker, Albatros D's, SPAD's, SE5/SE5a's, were good, but what about the Camel? Was it good, highly regarded by pilots?

Thanks,
James Sontag

[Jamo]

Tricky for novice to fly, particularly managing fuel richness on/after takeoff
Very manouevreable but performance tended to fall off significantly at higher altitudes
Highest number of victories vs other allied types
But also highest number of pilot casualties
SE5a was faster and easier/safer to fly but fewer aircraft served due to engine supply issues

Just my take on everything I have read

TVAL pilots back the SE5a as the best RFC/RAF fighter

[ALBATROS1234]

Dangerous aircraft especially on landings.more pilots died in crashes than being shot down.was manuverable when turning to port side but hard to turn starboard due to the powerful centrifical force of the rotary engine in relation to c.o.g. but a formidable foe in the hands of pilots who knew how to get the most out of them.

[Nigel Jackson]

Hello James

You ask an interesting question. As with all such debates, much depends on the context and there may be an element of subjectivity in my response. If I may first deal with the latter, I have to admit that I think the SE5a magnificent; a real thoroughbred.

The Camel was indeed a powerful, rugged aircraft and it is important to remember that it was the first RFC single-seater to carry two fixed machine guns firing through the propeller arc. Built in huge numbers, it was certainly an unforgiving a machine for the novice. Forgive me if I have the terminolgy wrong, but I understand that the difficulty stemmed, in large part, from the immense torque generated by the large rotary engine. I'm not sure if it's an urban myth but I have read somewhere that more than one Camel pilot threw off a pursuer by appearing to turn one way only to allow the torque to pull the aircraft round in a tight circle and escape in the opposite direction!

There seems little doubt that the Camel could outperform the Albatros DV and DVa, but one must recognise that a skilled pilot in a average aircraft was always likely to overcome a poor or novice opponent in a technically better machine. Pilot casualties in Camels were high, but again the context is important. While the glorious SE5a was engaging in exciting encounters at altitude with types including the Fokker DVII (which is why I think they would make an excellent WNW Duellist set), the Camel was performing valiantly at lower levels and in a ground attack role. Particularly in the desparate days of spring 1918, the relative lack of dedicated RAF ground attack aircaft (the DH5 aside) meant that the Camel was thrown into the vacuum as attempts were made to stem the last great German offensive. Not conceived for this role, losses from ground fire were horrific.

On one final note, while Roy Brown displayed real leadership skills in tracking May's plight and may even have saved his life by distracting Richthofen, the broad consensus now is that the single bullet which killed the German was fired from the ground.

Best wishes
Nigel

[James]

Hello James

You ask an interesting question. As with all such debates, much depends on the context and there may be an element of subjectivity in my response. If I may first deal with the latter, I have to admit that I think the SE5a magnificent; a real thoroughbred.

The Camel was indeed a powerful, rugged aircraft and it is important to remember that it was the first RFC single-seater to carry two fixed machine guns firing through the propeller arc. Built in huge numbers, it was certainly an unforgiving a machine for the novice. Forgive me if I have the terminolgy wrong, but I understand that the difficulty stemmed, in large part, from the immense torque generated by the large rotary engine. I'm not sure if it's an urban myth but I have read somewhere that more than one Camel pilot threw off a pursuer by appearing to turn one way only to allow the torque to pull the aircraft round in a tight circle and escape in the opposite direction!

There seems little doubt that the Camel could outperform the Albatros DV and DVa, but one must recognise that a skilled pilot in a average aircraft was always likely to overcome a poor or novice opponent in a technically better machine. Pilot casualties in Camels were high, but again the context is important. While the glorious SE5a was engaging in exciting encounters at altitude with types including the Fokker DVII (which is why I think they would make an excellent WNW Duellist set), the Camel was performing valiantly at lower levels and in a ground attack role. Particularly in the desparate days of spring 1918, the lack of a dedicated RAF ground attack aircaft, (until the eventual arrival of the Sopwith Dolphin), meant that the Camel was thrown into the vacuum as attempts were made to stem the last great German offensive. Not conceived for this role, losses from ground fire were horrific.

On one final note, while Roy Brown displayed real leadership skills in tracking May's plight and may even have saved his life by distracting Richthofen, the broad consensus now is that the single bullet which killed the German was fired from the ground.
Best wishes
Nigel

Yep, wasn't it from Australian machine gunners?

Thanks for all your replies. It seems that the Camel was a great fighter until the Fokker D.VII came out if I'm understanding everything correctly.

Nigel, despite the huge losses, how did the Camel fare as a ground attack aircraft?

[Nigel Jackson]

Hello again James.

Yes, you are right in that the ground fire came from Australian positions. In terms of machine gunners, a Sergeant Cedric Popkin is frequently accredited with the key shot, but we cannot be entirely certain that it wasn't just a rifle shot fired by an unknown soldier.

As to the Camel's ability as a ground attack aircraft, I'll have to leave much to those with greater expertise than me. From what I've read, it was imperfectly suited to the role because the pilot's vision forward, below the nose was extremely limited and I'm pretty sure there was little or no armour. If you look at a Camel there is an immense amount packed into the first couple of metres behind the propeller; any hit there seems highly likely to inflict significant damage.

I find it interesting that while the German senior command retained, overlong, a faith in the Albatros scouts, they were much more forward thinking in terms of ground attack machines. By contrast, their British counterparts may have failed to focus sufficiently on the urgency of new ground support/attack aircraft. The use of the Camel in this role (alongside the DH5), seems to me to have been a measure of almost desperate expediency during the panicky spring months of 1918

Best wishes
Nigel

[James]

Thanks again fore your insight, Nigel Most helpful. I have to agree that the Germans were thinking ahead in terms of ground attack aircraft, even armoured aircraft for the role as well, and not trying to get too far off the subject, it sounds like the British were late in regards to developing ground attack aircraft and used the Camel in that role as that is what they had a lot of?

James

[macsporran]

Hey guys, I think we're a wee bit off here. The Dolphin had excellent performance above 10,000 feet and was very successful as a high altitude fighter.
I think you are thinking of the Sopwith Salamander, which was designed specifically as a "Trench Fighter". Designated TF 2, it followed a TF 1 Camel armoured variant.
Prior to this the DH 5 was much used in the ground attack role, mainly because it was pretty useless high up!
Camels were allocated a lot of ground attack work and this is extensively described in "Winged Victory".
James, if you want to know all about how good and bad the Camel was I'm sure we would all recommend this book, a novel by VM Yeates, but in reality a thinly disguised account of his experiences flying the beast. (and his wish that he was in SE5s or Dolphins!) A great read and cheaply available on paper or electronically.
Cheers. Sandy

[James]

I will definitely have to check out that book, Sandy.

Thanks,
James

[Nigel Jackson]

Thanks Sandy and apologies James. How careless of me! The Salamander was indeed intended for use in the ground attack role, not the Dolphin, although barely none reached the front before the war ended. In the vacuum, the Camel and the DH5 had to bear the brunt of the work. I trust that my linkage of this role with the high casualty rate amongst Camel pilots remains true.

I have corrected the errors in my earlier posts.

Best wishes
Nigel

[Pfalz_Phan]

IMHO, one way to tell if a weapon was effective is to see what the enemy did to counter it. Example being the Nieuport and AIRCO DH2 brought out to counter the FOK E models.