sopwith camel kill/loss ratio

"Russell Waterson" writes:

That is facinating. You did put some work into this and I appreciate it. It
is very interesting especially when we are trying to get a handle on what it
was like for them. I am not sure but it is a guess any way, but would a
squadron have an aircraft like the camel and have them with different
engines and hence different performances? E.g. one pilot have the Clerget
another the Bentley another the Br1 etc.

That is a good question. Looking through the references I don't see
an answer. According to the records the RNAS ordered mainly Clerget
and BR1 engined Camels. The RFC may have mainly ordered Clerget
engined Camels (this is my inference from the wording and not
reliable). This would suggest that it is possible that they had mixed
engines in the one squadron and indeed flight. If this was the case
there would have been a considerable advantage in the aircraft with
better performance as these numbers suggest a 10% advantage in speed
was possible.

As a pointer in _Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps_ James McCudden
describes how he installed an engine with the high compression pistons
in his SE5a (taking it from 200hp to 220hp or 240hp). Together with
taking great care with his engine he was able to regularly achieve
22,000 ft and was able to catch and shoot down the high flying Rumpler
reconnaisance aircraft. McCudden at least once mentioned that when he
had to use someone elses aircraft the lower performance was obvious.
McCudden was a mechanic by background and this probably helped in
making sure that the engines were kept to the highest standard.

It would make maintainance difficult and formation flying hard. The
idiosyncrasies of of each type would be different so to go from one aircraft
to another would test the skill of a pilot when they had to swap an
aircraft. Does anyone kow much about that?

It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
speed and hence it was less of a problem. The maintenance question
could be quite a significant one. However, remember that a lot of
changes in the first world war were ad hoc. Up to 1916 or thereabouts
most squadrons had multiple types of aircraft. The move to
standardisation was probably impeded by the manufacturing limitations.
They may have _preferred_ to have aircraft with the same engine in the
squadron, but had to take what was available. The expansion of the
service may have made it hard to achieve standardisation. Looking at
the references suggests (my inference again) that there was a tendency
to reduce the number of engine types actually used in a given
aircraft. A lot of engines were tested but not actually used in
service. Some hard evidence would be useful.

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

Stephen Harker wrote:

It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
speed and hence it was less of a problem.

I haven't been following this thread too closely but if it hasn't been
mentioned yet, remember that those old WW1 rotary engines didn't
have throttles. The pilot used an "interupter" switch to alternately
kill the ignition and restart it so as to adjust their speeds. A good
example of this technique (called "blipping") being used is in the
1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" starring Robert Redford.

Mike Marron wrote:

Stephen Harker wrote:

It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
speed and hence it was less of a problem.

I haven't been following this thread too closely but if it hasn't been
mentioned yet, remember that those old WW1 rotary engines didn't
have throttles. The pilot used an "interupter" switch to alternately
kill the ignition and restart it so as to adjust their speeds. A good
example of this technique (called "blipping") being used is in the
1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" starring Robert Redford.

I don't believe "blipping" was a characteristic of all rotary engines
though was it? Certainly was in the case of the Camel.

I've heard and seen the Camel in flight (genuine engine; reproduction
aircraft) at Rhinebeck airfield (see http://hobart.cs.umass.edu/~harding/Rhinebeck/
for some pics I took during a visit in 2001, including the Sopwith Camel)
and it really is quite distinctive sounding in flight.

I would think staying together would be quite challenging given different
engines, different age/wear of the engines, and the blipping throttle
control requirement.

Even during WWII, I've read accounts of the same model aircraft having
difficulties staying together because of differences in engine wear.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
Stephen Harker wrote:

It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
speed and hence it was less of a problem.

I haven't been following this thread too closely but if it hasn't been
mentioned yet, remember that those old WW1 rotary engines didn't
have throttles. The pilot used an "interupter" switch to alternately
kill the ignition and restart it so as to adjust their speeds. A good
example of this technique (called "blipping") being used is in the
1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" starring Robert Redford.

I don't believe "blipping" was a characteristic of all rotary engines
though was it? Certainly was in the case of the Camel.

Probably not "all" but AFAIK blipping was a characteristic of the
vast majority of WW1 rotarys.

I've heard and seen the Camel in flight (genuine engine; reproduction
aircraft) at Rhinebeck airfield (see http://hobart.cs.umass.edu/~harding/Rhinebeck/
for some pics I took during a visit in 2001, including the Sopwith Camel)
and it really is quite distinctive sounding in flight.

Yep. I understand that severe backfires as the result of blipping
sometimes caused fires to erupt inflight which of course would
promptly engulf the entire dope 'n fabric airframes.

I would think staying together would be quite challenging given different
engines, different age/wear of the engines, and the blipping throttle
control requirement.

All true, not to mention the lack of 2-way radio communications.

Even during WWII, I've read accounts of the same model aircraft having
difficulties staying together because of differences in engine wear.

As an aside, besides complete engine failures I've also experienced
a runaway engine at WOT (wide open throttle) while flying in formation
with a bud. My throttle cable broke while flying crosscountry at our
normal cruising altitude of 5-10 ft. AGL underneath the powerlines and
bridges while hopscotching over the hedgerows and terrorizing any
cow, deer, or other four-legged critter who happens to get in our way.

My options were either to hit the mag switches and kill the runaway
engine, or simply go with the flow and let the bird do it's thing and
climb, climb, climb. I chose the latter and radioed my bud that I was
diverting to the nearest airport. By the time we reached our
alternate, we had climbed up to about 8,000 ft. AGL at which time
I simply shut down the runaway engine and glided down to an
uneventful dead stick landing.