Camel

What kind of a carburetor did a rotary engine have? There was no
throttle.

Beats the hell out of me. It's a bit bigger than a thimble, doesn't look
anything like a modern carburetor, (in fact, it doesn't look like it would
do much of anything in particular), and is only of interest because of its
history.

Thanks, Jay. But how do you know it's a carburetor? Is it marked?

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Jay. But how do you know it's a carburetor? Is it marked?

That's probably why it's as big as a thimble. If it weren't for the fact
that "Original Carburetor from Historic Sopwith Camel" had to be stamped on
the side, it could've been just a bit bigger than a grain of rice.

Go to:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/

They have three Me 262's for sale for about $2 Mil each, less the
J-34's which are readily available.

Compare this with the Camel at $1.6 Mil.

The 262 would be a lot easer to fly than the Camel for the low time
pilot. Also 540 mph vs 100+ mph

Either would be a 'show' stopper at Osh or SnF G

Big John


On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:27:38 -0500, Big John
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:20:51 -0500, Big John
wrote:

Lets see if this link works.

Click he Original Sopwith Camel

Big John

Lets see if this link works.

http://www.vintageaviation.net/Origi...th%20Camel.htm

OK. Any takers? I don't want to get into a bidding war. Wonder if he
wil let you test hop prior to bidding?

Big John

Thanks, Jay. But how do you know it's a carburetor? Is it marked?

The guy who donated it to the inn told me that's what it was -- and he's a
pretty straight-up guy.

Heck, it could be a sewing machine part, for all I know...

But, then, the same could be said for the Mustang parts we've got, and the
B-25 parts, and the Mosquito instruments, and... Unless you've got the
parts manual for each plane, there's really no good way to know what you've
got...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Beats the hell out of me. It's a bit bigger than a thimble, ....

If it's that size, it's probably the nozzle for the fuel inlet to the induction
system used on most or all of the rotaries. Take a picture of it and send it to the
people at Rhinebeck. They'll know for sure.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

They have three Me 262's for sale for about $2 Mil each, less the
J-34's which are readily available.

Compare this with the Camel at $1.6 Mil.

Besides being cheaper, the Camel would be a hell of a lot more fun!

The 262 would be a lot easer to fly than the Camel for the low time
pilot.

That might be true. But back in 1918, guys with less time than
anyone in this news group, probably, got into Camels and flew away..
Some killed themselves, but most of them did not. Survival of the
fittest.

Also 540 mph vs 100+ mph

Yeah, but unless you're illegally low, you have no sense of moving at
540.

But the one I'd REALLY like to have is that SE-5 shown on the same web
site.

Flying an SE-5, you don't have to gulp Castor Oil.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote:


That might be true. But back in 1918, guys with less time than
anyone in this news group, probably, got into Camels and flew away..
Some killed themselves, but most of them did not.

Sort of backwards. Most killed themselves, but some did not. The loss rate during
training was far higher than the loss rate in combat.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:14:39 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

That might be true. But back in 1918, guys with less time than
anyone in this news group, probably, got into Camels and flew away..
Some killed themselves, but most of them did not. Survival of the
fittest.

The history books describe the Camel as an airplane far more dangerous
to those learning to fly it than combat with the Germans.

It was extremely short coupled and the large prop bolted to the
spinning rotory engine resulted in a remarkable turning radius
opposite the direction of the prop/engine rotation. Some have
described the turning radius as being scarcely larger than the
wingspan. Unfortunately, few pilots could use this maneuverability
because loss of control was always close at hand.

The intersting contradiction is that most shootdowns, in WWI, occured
from stalking and firing from behind and below the target aircraft, or
swift pounces from above and behind. During the "furball" type of
swirling dogfights, few got shot down as everyone was maneuvering to
avoid collision and get on someone's tail or get someone off theirs.
The smart guys stayed off to one side and above and pounced on pilots
who strayed out of the mass of airplanes without paying attention to
their surroundings.

The Germans seemed to understand the proper lessons learned from WWI
and what constituted an effective fighter as the Messerschmitt Bf109
was not designed with dogfighting in mind. It was almost purely a
"bouncer", and aircraft that excelled in high speed dives upon an
unaware enemy. But the cockpit was so narrow that the pilots
literally could not apply as much force to the stick as they could
have had they a few more inches to within the cockpit to brace
themselves. (notes from British pilots who tested a captured 109
during the Battle of Britain)

In addition, the 109 had a higher wingloading than either the Spitfire
or the Hurricane, and it's stall speed that deturmines how tightly a
fighter turns.

In WWI as WWII, it was the careful stalk and high speed bounce that
accounted for most of the shootdowns, not the dogfight.

Corky Scott

Some killed themselves, but most of them did not.

Sort of backwards. Most killed themselves, but some did not.

I have no numbers, and wonder if anyone has. But I doubt that 51% or
more killed themselves.

The loss rate during training was far higher than the loss rate in combat.

Yeah, I've heard and read that many times. The same was said about WW
II.

But I got to Pensacola only four years after VJ Day; and during the
year I was there, in Basic, with hundreds of cadets going through
training, only three fatalities occurred: two students, one
instructor.

I don't recall how many fatalities occurred during the six months I
was in Advanced. None occurred at NAS Corpus Christi, where I was,
but there might have been a couple at other fields.

We weren't flying Camels, of course, but we were flying the same
aircraft the Navy used during WW II.

But even if more pilots died learning to fly the Camel than died it
combat, that doesn't mean it was more than 51%.

vince norris

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:00:15 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Yeah, I've heard and read that many times. The same was said about WW
II.

Vince, I'm not sure WWII training was as dangerous as that of WWI. I
don't see how it could have been. The trainers of WWI were a
hodgepodge of many types and few things were normalised as they are
now. They stalled abrubtly, had extremely steep power off descent and
were very unstable on the ground. In addition, the unreliability of
the engines was legendary. For a while, few individuals understood
how much training was necessary to qualify a person as a bonified
pilot.

Given that situation, it's not surprising how high the fatality rate
was. When you graduate your students, who had only a few hours total
time, from the "relatively" stable trainer to the Camel, which was
ridiculously unstable, of course there were lots of accidents.

Corky Scott