Just as an interesting not on comparing speeds. I remember people comparing
the Mirage IIIO and the F18. They looked at the Mirage and said it was a
mach 2 fighter, how could the F 18 keep up? They forget the Mirage only
could go that fast at altitude and stuggled even to get past mach 1 at low
altitude. The F 18 would do it easily at lower altitudes which is the area
where most combats would tend to be fought.
Max spead stats can be deceiving in such comparisons

"Russell Waterson" wrote in message
...
It needs to be remembered that when the performance figures are expressed
say at max 130 mph that usually means when the aircraft is new and running
well. Most aircraft especially in ww1 would not be able to go the max
speed
as they got damaged, worn out, maintainance not up to scatch etc. It might
be said that the Camel went 120 but in reality it was more like 110 or
even
less.

"Stephen Harker" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding writes:

Russell Waterson wrote:

There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a
Camel
pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The
camel
was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The
Germans
found
that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have
any
success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same
boat, slow
but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude
while
SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. [...]

I always thought the Sopwith Camel was pretty fast; 130 mph or so, as
well as
maneuverable. It's generally considered the best Allied fighter of
WWI
(I think), although Spad and SE5a have their adherents.

I'll try to look up some numbers tonight (JM Bruce _War Planes of the
First World War_ or the Profile series may cover this), but my memory
of various references matches the comments from "Winged Victory". The
numbers I have in memory for Camels are around 120 mph at sea level,
the SE5a was around 130 to 135 mph at sea level. The Camel
performance was supposed to fall off more rapidly with height. I
recall comments which seemed to be more specifically `Clerget Camels'
suggesting that this may not hold for the BR1 engined Camels (or less
so). It is probably true that variations in engine output and
reliability was greater in WW1 than in WW2 due to lower metallurgical
and other quality control, which would further complicate matters. It
is recorded that in December 1917 the British had around 400 SE5a
airframes awaiting engines, the quality of many of the supplied
engines not being acceptable.

In 1918 the two Australian squadrons (AFC squadron #2 with SE5a and #4
with Camels if I recall correctly, don't remember the RFC/RAF numbers)
were operated together with the SE5a's used for top cover and the
Camels for low level. When the Camels were replaced with Snipes this
tended to be reversed, suggesting that Snipes had a better altitude
performance.

--
Stephen Harker

School of Physics & Materials Engineering
Monash University
http://www.ph.adfa.edu.au/s-harker/
Baloney Baffles brains: Eric Frank
Russell