![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|