sopwith camel kill/loss ratio

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.

Odd you should mention that book. I'm sitting here with my copy of "Winged
Victory" by Geoffrey Perret, published by Random House in 1993, in hand. It's
about the Army Air Forces in World War II, and has nary a mention of Sopwith
Camels anywhere in it. (^-^)))

I guess the copywrite laws only provide protection for the author and his works
for a limited period of time.

George Z.

In article , Stephen Harding
writes
Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
shooting down of von Richthofen.

Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
destroyer of the Red Baron?

I saw presumably the same documentary a few months ago in the UK.
Unfortunately I can't remember what the final conclusions were, but
remember thinking the 'new information' supposedly revealed was 'old
news' to me. The suggestion that someone on the ground may have shot him
down is not new, although the identity of those who may have done it may
be new.

Far too many documentaries these days pretend to be revealing new
information, when most are just re-telling old information and need a
new angle to promote the programme.

--
John

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

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.

Odd you should mention that book. I'm sitting here with my copy of
"Winged
Victory" by Geoffrey Perret, published by Random House in 1993, in hand.
It's
about the Army Air Forces in World War II, and has nary a mention of
Sopwith
Camels anywhere in it. (^-^)))

I guess the copywrite laws only provide protection for the author and his
works
for a limited period of time.

ISTR titles aren't coyright.

John

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:56:33 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

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. He writes that sometimes
he would be jelous of them because they were fast er and higher and so were
more able to catch the enemy better but in a Camel he could get out of
trouble easier. The Germans did not want to dogfight Camels because of the
obvious that in a dogfight Camels were better then what the Germans had at
the time

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.

As a somewhat related question...

PBS recently had a Nova show on "Who Killed the Red Baron?". It mentioned
that he is generally portrayed as having been shot down by a Lt Brown of
the RCAF (RFC??), but the bullet that did him in was noted to have passed
from *below* him, and up and across (from the side) through his chest,
making it questionable that he was actually killed by Brown, in a Sopwith
Camel attacking from behind and above.

It mentioned a couple sets of ground gunners, British and Australian, who
were actively shooting at him too.

Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
shooting down of von Richthofen.

Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
destroyer of the Red Baron?


SMH

IIRC the "new" information was a computer simulation, which left them
with the conclusion that they could not reach a conclusion. We still
do not (and probably never will) know for sure. Personally I think the
ground pounder with a "silver bullet" probably made the shot.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

IIRC the "new" information was a computer simulation, which left them
with the conclusion that they could not reach a conclusion. We still

Sounds like a news "tease" from one of the major networks. Get you to
tune in to find something you already know, or isn't as advertised. I
generally have a lot of respect for Nova (or was it Frontline??), so I
don't believe they'd do something like that. But who knows?

do not (and probably never will) know for sure. Personally I think the
ground pounder with a "silver bullet" probably made the shot.

If the fatal bullet truly had the path described in the show, it's difficult
to see how Brown could have shot down the Baron.

Could be a combination of both though. Brown damaged the DrI. badly enough
that it went down, but some ground gunner killed/mortally wounded Richthofen
before he could get the aircraft down or maneuver out of danger.


SMH

lol I guess in those days they didn't care nor were as fussed

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

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.

Odd you should mention that book. I'm sitting here with my copy of
"Winged
Victory" by Geoffrey Perret, published by Random House in 1993, in hand.
It's
about the Army Air Forces in World War II, and has nary a mention of
Sopwith
Camels anywhere in it. (^-^)))

I guess the copywrite laws only provide protection for the author and his
works
for a limited period of time.

George Z.

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

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

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

Russell Waterson wrote:

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.

OK, but that would be largely true across the board. Everyone was experiencing
slower speeds than new.

The Sopwith Camel is the quintessential WWI allied warplane, and not solely
because that's what Snoopy fights the Red Baron in.

It was a very capable aircraft, although I understand difficult to fly.
Lot's of torque roll that killed a lot of novice pilots, and required
constant attention and adjustment in flight. Considered the most maneuverable
fighter ever built by some (that torque roll brought nose up in left hand and
down in right hand turns; something experienced pilots made good use of). It
also killed more enemy aircraft than any other allied type (almost 1300).

Of course, having said that, it's possible that the Fokker Dr.I is thought
of as the quintessential German fighter of WWI, probably precisely because
of Snoopy and the "cursed Red Baron", even though it doesn't really have a
right to be considered among the best German aircraft of the war.

Probably Albatross gets that laurel and the Fokker DVII best over-all.


SMH