SE5 and Sopwith Camel

[phil andrade]

How far is it appropriate to describe the Sopwith Camel as the "Spitfire" and the SE5 as the "Hurricane" of The Great War?

Phil.

[Jonathan Saunders]

In my limited knowledge I would say not very. Unlike the Spitfire the Camel was a difficult aircraft to master whereas the SE5(a) was not only a solid platform, it was as fast as anything around, reasonable maximum altitude and had great diving ability. The Camel obvviously did have more manoeuvrability but personally I would have chosen the SE5a over anything else.

I am sure the aircraft experts will be a long soon to put me right if Im wrong.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[ianw]

How much does the fact that Biggles flew a Camel influence us here? Are there any statistics about the kill ratio of the aircraft?

I understand that the Camel could turn very quickly in the direction of its propellor rotation. I think Biggles' pal flew an SE5 and they had a lot of banter about the relative merits of their aircraft.

[centurion]

In WW1 it was the Camel that got the ground attack role whereas in WW2 it was the Hurricane that performed this duty until it was taken over by the Typhoon. The Camel also played a much bigger night fighter role - again as per the Hurricane

If we're going to play match the aircraft (which I'm not sure we can do) what WW1 aircraft filled the role of the BP Defiant (let alone the benighted Blackburn Roc)?

[Adrian Roberts]

How far is it appropriate to describe the Sopwith Camel as the "Spitfire" and the SE5 as the "Hurricane" of The Great War

I've heard it described as the other way round! Jonathan's and Centurion's summaries are pretty well correct, and much as the Hurricane had a better turning circle than the Spitfire but an inferior performance in most other ways, so the Camel was more manouverable than the SE5a but not really superior otherwise.

Any direct comparisons of WW1 aircraft with those of WW2 or any other era are going to be very fanciful and imprecise. For starters, what would the Sopwith Dolphin, which was a contemporary of the Camel and SE, have been equivalent to? The Typhoon? Or perhaps the Tempest, as it was possibly better than either? Or perhaps the Sopwith Snipe, the Camel's replacement, was really equivalent to the Typhoon as this was the Hurricane's replacement (very roughly), which would make the Martinsyde Buzzard, which would have been the SE5a's replacement if the war had continued, equivalent to the Supermarine Spiteful, the Spitfire's replacement!

A fun conversation over a beer or two, but not really one that gets us anywhere.

[Bryn_Hammond]

An SE5 and a Camel together had twice as many wings as a Hurricane and a Spitfire.

Does that take us forward?

[Starlight]

I know this whole discussion is somewhat academic but I feel there are some parallels. The Camel and Spitfire came out of their respective wars as icons whereas other aircraft like the SE5a and Hurricane, which contributed as much if not more to the conflict in the air, were often remembered as the less glamorous ‘workhorses’. Design and flight characteristics also had similarities. The Camel and Spitfire took some getting used to, each with their own set of handling idiosyncrasies, but were especially rewarding to an expert pilot. Both the SE5 and Hurricane had sturdy airframes and were excellent gun platforms (unlike the Spitfire which was originally designed for speed and maneuverability and did not lend itself to armaments or ease of repair when damaged - my father worked on jet engine research during WW2 and put Spitfires and Hurricanes back together in his spare time. He often told me how he hated working on Spitfires, especially when trying to bolt the wings back on). One final similarity – weren’t the Camel and Spitfire the most produced type of fighter in WW1 and WW2 respectively?

[phil andrade]

I know this whole discussion is somewhat academic but I feel there are some parallels. The Camel and Spitfire came out of their respective wars as icons whereas other aircraft like the SE5a and Hurricane, which contributed as much if not more to the conflict in the air, were often remembered as the less glamorous 'workhorses'.

Thank you, Starlight. You've provided me with a cogent and incisive response. I was beginning to feel that people were considering my question riidiculous and irrelevant.

Phil.

[Gunner Bailey]

In my limited knowledge I would say not very. Unlike the Spitfire the Camel was a difficult aircraft to master whereas the SE5(a) was not only a solid platform, it was as fast as anything around, reasonable maximum altitude and had great diving ability. The Camel obvviously did have more manoeuvrability but personally I would have chosen the SE5a over anything else.

I am sure the aircraft experts will be a long soon to put me right if Im wrong.

Regards,

Jonathan S

I'd agree with that, but I think the Camel had a better MG arrangement. The SE5a top wing gun was always an odd one for me. If I had the choice I'd fly the SE5a.

Gunner Bailey

[centurion]

The SE5a top wing gun was always an odd one for me.

Not if you were Albert Ball, who may have influenced its inclusion, as his favourite approach to two seaters (when flying a Nieuport) was to approach from below and behind and fire upwards at 45 degrees using the top wing gun. The Sopwith Dolphin tried to have it both ways with two fixed forward guns and two over wing Lewises. The over wing gun also had an advantage in that in murky weather or darkness the pilot was not temporarily blinded by gun flash. One other top wing gun advantage - it was more easily cleared if it jammed as it could be swung down so the pilot could get at it. Some Sopwiths (One and a half strutter, Pup and Camel) used for night fighting had one or two overwing guns. The naval version of the Camel had essentially the same armament as the SE 5

[Jonathan Saunders]

Thank you, Starlight. You've provided me with a cogent and incisive response. I was beginning to feel that people were considering my question riidiculous and irrelevant.

Phil - not at all. It was a very reasonable question to ask. I am sorry if my answer made you think otherwise.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[squirrel]

What makes an icon? Good press?

As has been said:

Camel was a very difficult aircraft to fly - high wing loading, feather light controls.

Right turn was virtually instant due to the rotary engine.

SE5 was stable, manouvreable.

Hurricane has been described as a work-horse and perhaps not so aerobatic as the Spitfire which was essentially, as has also been said, a racing 'plane.

Although this has always puzzled me; the Camel was an ugly looking 'plane but not so the SE5.

The Hurricane was not so easy on the eye as the Spitfire, probably the best looking 'plane ever produced IMHO.

[Gibbo]

I have always seen the Camel as the more glamorous of the 2 and in my case the reason is undoubtedly the one suggested by Ian above, namely that Biggles flew a Camel. It was certainly a view that I'd formed before being able to back it up with any facts such as speed, maneouverability, armament, kill ratios etc.

Ironically, however, the Camel is actually the ancestor of the Hurricane. I mean this in industrial terms, not design philosophy or operational experience. Sopwith went bankrupt after the war. Tom Sopwith soon formed a new company but, to avoid legal complications, called it Hawker after his chief test pilot and business partner, Harry Hawker.

[Gunner Bailey]

Not if you were Albert Ball, who may have influenced its inclusion, as his favourite approach to two seaters (when flying a Nieuport) was to approach from below and behind and fire upwards at 45 degrees using the top wing gun. The Sopwith Dolphin tried to have it both ways with two fixed forward guns and two over wing Lewises. The over wing gun also had an advantage in that in murky weather or darkness the pilot was not temporarily blinded by gun flash. One other top wing gun advantage - it was more easily cleared if it jammed as it could be swung down so the pilot could get at it. Some Sopwiths (One and a half strutter, Pup and Camel) used for night fighting had one or two overwing guns. The naval version of the Camel had essentially the same armament as the SE 5

Centurion

Not everyone was Albert Ball. As pilot myself, the thought of standing up in an open cockpit with no safety belt on (possibly in combat) to change a magazine seems to add a number of unneccessary risks to an already hazardous occupation.

Gunner Bailey

[David Filsell]

I am interested in the assertion that the Spitfire was "essentially a racing plane". Whatever evidence is there for this? It was built to meet an RAF fighter specification. In design, construction and etc it bore very little in common with the Supermarine Schnieder Trophy Racers - the design team had moved on. Without direct evidence it is impossible to judge which was ever the better of two aircraft. Camel riders by far and large thought their mount superior. SE5A pilots the opposite. The same was (generally) true of Spitfire and and Hurricane pilots, Bf 109 and FW190 pilots.

[centurion]

Centurion

Not everyone was Albert Ball. As pilot myself, the thought of standing up in an open cockpit with no safety belt on (possibly in combat) to change a magazine seems to add a number of unneccessary risks to an already hazardous occupation.

Gunner Bailey

No No No - the mount was designed so that the gun slid back and down allowing the pilot to change magazines from the comparative comfort and safety of his seat. It was the same mechanism that allowed Ball and others to fire upwards at 45 degrees. Pilots wore safety belts. You're thinking of Louis Strange's 1914 improvised mounting that didn't allow the gun to slide back - definitely a one off since he fell out of the cockpit (but survived).

[per ardua per mare per terram]

what WW1 aircraft filled the role of the BP Defiant (let alone the benighted Blackburn Roc)?

The BE2 knocked both into a cocked hat! Both were withdrawn rapidly, the BE2 was produced in greater numbers than the design justified.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

In their brief existance both the Camel & SE5A achieved iconic status. Both the Hurricane & Spitfire were capable of more development, which was more a reflection of the stage that technology had reached.

[Gunner Bailey]

No No No - the mount was designed so that the gun slid back and down allowing the pilot to change magazines from the comparative comfort and safety of his seat. It was the same mechanism that allowed Ball and others to fire upwards at 45 degrees. Pilots wore safety belts. You're thinking of Louis Strange's 1914 improvised mounting that didn't allow the gun to slide back - definitely a one off since he fell out of the cockpit (but survived).

No, I did know it slid back down on the curved rail but thought they had to stand up to release it.

GB

[centurion]

No, I did know it slid back down on the curved rail but thought they had to stand up to release it.

GB

There was a Bowden cable operated release

[Adrian Roberts]

QUOTE (centurion @ Sep 21 2008, 11:11 PM)

what WW1 aircraft filled the role of the BP Defiant (let alone the benighted Blackburn Roc)?

The BE2 knocked both into a cocked hat! Both were withdrawn rapidly, the BE2 was produced in greater numbers than the design justified.

The BE2 series faired no worse than any other two-seater that was sent into battle with no fighter escort that was able to protect them. If you look up the list of victories of Boelcke, Immelmann etc, the numbers of BE2c victims only reflects the number that were around; if a Fokker E got onto the tail of the supposedly more manoeuverable Morane it was just as likely to be doomed. The BE2c is more nearly equivalent to the Blenheim and the Battle - although I can't actually prove this, the impression I get is that the survivability of a BE pursued by a Fokker was better than a Battle or Blenheim pursued by a Bf109.

The Defiant was actually worse than any WW1 two-seater in that all the lessons of the need for a pilots gun as well as a rear gun were forgotten. The Bristol F2B was good because it was manoeverable enough to make the pilot's gun effective while still having the observer's gun to protect the rear; when initially introduced they tried using the observer's gun as the main weapon with disastrous consequences - this was what the Air Ministry forgot when ordering the Defiant (it wasn't Boulton Paul's fault). To be fair the Defiant was intended as a bomber destroyer and it did this job very well - but it should never have been sent into action against single-seaters as it was over Dunkirk.

[centurion]

Adrian - you've quoted me and included in the quote a reference to the BE2 which I most certainly did not say!

The BE2 was designed well before fighter aircraft were envisaged and met its original specification of a sturdy, easy to fly recce aircraft that gave the observer the best possible view forwards and downwards extremely well. It was very robust when the active life of many types on active service was not much better than a month or so because of lack of hangerage, stress and strain etc and it was easy to manufacture. These last two features explain why it was retained well after the time for retirement was due. I don't think there was a WW2 equivalent (and I suspect that this whole exercise is a red herring ).

[Adrian Roberts]

Centurion

My quote was from Per Ardua's post, #17; he linked the BE2c to your Defiant suggestion. I was waiting for someone to eventually mention the BE as an equivalent to the least successful WW2 aircraft.

I agree with you that the BE2 did what it was designed to do extremely well. It was amazing how useful and practical it was given that the prototype flew only nine years after the Wright Flyer. But eventually it had to be used in combat at a time when the allies had nothing to counter the Fokker E series.

Having said that, looking at the leading Fokker E aces victory lists, only six out of 40 of Boelcke's victims were BE2cs (though he flew mainly against the French), only six out 17 of Immelmanns (who flew mainly against the British), only one out of sixteen of Wintgens and 2 out of 10 of Mulzers were BE2cs. I'm not about to develop a revisionist theory that it was a fantastic combat aircraft, I only question how much more vulnerable it was than anything else we had at the time. Lloyd George's establishment-bashing "Fokker Fodder" speech has a lot to answer for.

My point was not to equate the BE with the Defiant. The latter was a much less versatile design concept, only good when it was doing exactly what it was designed to do. The Roc couldn't even do that.

[stuartcphillips]

I think Biggles' pal flew an SE5 and they had a lot of banter about the relative merits of their aircraft.

I believe Biggles' pal was called Wilkinson, and yes they did have a lot of banter but most of it was of a competitive nature. For example, I believe they had a competition to shoot down an observation balloon. Biggles got round the problem of massed anti-aircraft fire by dropping a bunch a bottles tied together out of his aircraft. The gunners thought they sounded like bombs falling so hid, hence Biggles shot down the balloon and won a case of whiskey/lemonade depending on which version of the story you read. Biggles always seemed to get one over old Wilkinson, unsurprisingly.

I wonder if any other WW1 flyers used the dropping bottles technique, or whether it was something made up by W.E.Johns?

[squirrel]

Not WW1 but IIRC in Guy Gibson's book "Enemy Coast Ahead" it mentions dropping empty beer bottles down the flare chute in a Hampden bomber to frighten people with the noise which apparently sounded just like a bomb descending. Maybe the idea came from a Biggles book?