Bristol F2b vs Sopwith Camel

[ericwebb]

Oh gosh! I fear I am opening a can of worms here! Evidently the 2-man Bristol was a good solid piece of kit - pilot-friendly too - which could certainly hold its own in combat but which could not be manufactured in as great numbers as might have been hoped thanks to the shortage of the RR Falcon engine around which it had been designed. The single-seat Camel meanwhile, with its twin mgs, was highly effective in combat - and later in ground attack - available in numbers, but a b*gger to fly. Suppose - just suppose - there had been sufficient Bristols, would there have been any need for the Camel?

Now I'm getting out my tin hat!

Eric W

[John-B-Rooks]

Oh gosh! I fear I am opening a can of worms here! Evidently the 2-man Bristol was a good solid piece of kit - pilot-friendly too - which could certainly hold its own in combat but which could not be manufactured in as great numbers as might have been hoped thanks to the shortage of the RR Falcon engine around which it had been designed. The single-seat Camel meanwhile, with its twin mgs, was highly effective in combat - and later in ground attack - available in numbers, but a b*gger to fly. Suppose - just suppose - there had been sufficient Bristols, would there have been any need for the Camel?

Now I'm getting out my tin hat!

Eric W

Let's just say that they were designed to do different jobs and as such, each performed well in their intended roles. I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to call the F2B an early manifestation of the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft something to which a Camel couldn't really aspire.

Cheer ho

John

[Simon Birch]

Hello John,

It is an interesting question but cannot really be answered - it is like comparing apples and pears - both a fruit but if you want to make an apple pie you use an apple - if your making a pear tart the use the pear. Different fruits for different jobs.

Simon

[RobL]

Agree with different aircraft for different roles - as a personal bias I think the Bristol was one of the best in the war, and the power from the RR Falcon resulted in them often being seen with more than one MG for each crew member - either an additional Lewis gun on the Scarff ring for the Observer giving him double the firepower, or an over-wing Lewis in addition to the forward firing Vickers

[John-B-Rooks]

Hello John,

It is an interesting question but cannot really be answered - it is like comparing apples and pears - both a fruit but if you want to make an apple pie you use an apple - if your making a pear tart the use the pear. Different fruits for different jobs.

Simon

I agree Simon. I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet. Back to Ian's question though, from the point of view of total numbers manufactured there isn't a lot of difference (Bristol 5,500 v Sopwith 5,450) except that the Camel didn't see post-war service having already been superceded, whilst the Bristol was only retired in 1932 having outlived several pure 'fighters'. Ultimately it's plums for puddings and rhubarb for crumble though.

Cheer ho

John

[Lachlan]

Am I right in saying that the Bristol was designed and originally used as a conventional 2-seater observation/light-bomber and the rear-gun was the main weapon ? But they then found the Brisfit's power/speed and monoeverability etc could be used to bring the front guns into action aggressively as a fighter and it became an excellent two-seat fighter ?

I'm working from memory of what I read years ago, so please excuse me if I'm barking up the wrong tree !

BTW, another very good Bristol fighter (which I believed had a bum deal) was the Bristol M1 Monoplane scout of 1916, which was 30-50mph faster than enemy monoplanes but was turned down for service on the Western Front. It ended up with the RFC in Macedonia and Palestine.

[John-B-Rooks]

Am I right in saying that the Bristol was designed and originally used as a conventional 2-seater observation/light-bomber and the rear-gun was the main weapon ? But they then found the Brisfit's power/speed and monoeverability etc could be used to bring the front guns into action aggressively as a fighter and it became an excellent two-seat fighter ?

I'm working from memory of what I read years ago, so please excuse me if I'm barking up the wrong tree !

BTW, another very good Bristol fighter (which I believed had a bum deal) was the Bristol M1 Monoplane scout of 1916, which was 30-50mph faster than enemy monoplanes but was turned down for service on the Western Front. It ended up with the RFC in Macedonia and Palestine.

The Biff was designed as a reconnaissance aircraft and initially flown as such. On the first flight 5th April 1917, six F2As of 48 Sdn were pounced on and only two got back to base. When the tactics changed it became a very useful fighting machine with a sting at both ends. The excellent Bristol M1 C was relegated to the Middle East by reason of prejudice against monoplanes. Except for lighter armament and shorter endurance, it outperformed the Camel in every department but only 129 were built. Nice static example at Hendon and I think the Shuttleworth replica will be flying again this year.

Cheer ho.

John.

[centurion]

The Biff was designed as a reconnaissance aircraft and initially flown as such. On the first flight 5th April 1917, six F2As of 48 Sdn were pounced on and only two got back to base. When the tactics changed it became a very useful fighting machine with a sting at both ends. The excellent Bristol M1 C was relegated to the Middle East by reason of prejudice against monoplanes. Except for lighter armament and shorter endurance, it outperformed the Camel in every department but only 129 were built. Nice static example at Hendon and I think the Shuttleworth replica will be flying again this year.

Cheer ho.

John.

Not quite correct. The prototype R2A (which became the F2A) was initially considered as a general purpose aircraft to replace the BE12. Barnwell considered that when the R2A was re-engined with the Falcon the aircraft was a potential fighter. The clue's actually in the initials - F stood for fighter. The initial use of the aircraft was as a Reconnaissance Fighter (ie a recce aircraft that could look after itself).

Incidentally the Camel did continue fo a while after the war being used in Poland (by German pilots!)

[John-B-Rooks]

Not quite correct. The prototype R2A (which became the F2A) was initially considered as a general purpose aircraft to replace the BE12. Barnwell considered that when the R2A was re-engined with the Falcon the aircraft was a potential fighter. The clue's actually in the initials - F stood for fighter. The initial use of the aircraft was as a Reconnaissance Fighter (ie a recce aircraft that could look after itself).

Incidentally the Camel did continue fo a while after the war being used in Poland (by German pilots!)

What ho Centurion. I was of the opinion that Frank Barnwell's R2 A/B (never built as I understand it because the new Roll Royce Falcon was coming on line which changed the parameters) was conceived as a BE2 replacement with much of the design work having predated the introduction of the BE12 in mid 1916. The Camel had left (or was fast leaving) RFC/RAF service by November 1918 although I concede it was still in use elsewhere for a short while. On the basis that the two aircraft (Bristol and Sopwith) only saw service together in Commonwealth airforces and the original question was about comparative merits or otherwise of the types operating together, usage outside those forces didn't seem germane.

Cheer ho

John.

[fetubi]

Regarding actual numbers of Camels and Bristol Fighters on the Western Front, as opposed to production numbers, it changed a little over time, but in very broad terms there were between two and three times as many Sopwith Camels as F2bs. Both got introduced about the same time – the Bristol Fighter just edging it by a few weeks, in April 1917. By September 1917 there were 98 Camels with active RFC RNAS units compared with around 38 Bristol Fighters.

By February 1918 this had jumped to around 210 Camels and 105 F2bs. Camels were beginning to peak in numbers around August 1918, when almost 370 were with active squadrons, and this number held up – actually still increasing - through to the end of the war - 385 Camels were in place with units at the Armistice (i.e. they weren't on the wane – aircraft like Snipes were coming in effectively alongside Camels – there were 43 Snipes with active units at the Armistice). Meanwhile in these closing months there were never more than about 110 Bristol Fighters.

The RAF was still flying Camels around France 6 months later - witnessed by various Casualty Reports etc.

Trevor

[John-B-Rooks]

Regarding actual numbers of Camels and Bristol Fighters on the Western Front, as opposed to production numbers, it changed a little over time, but in very broad terms there were between two and three times as many Sopwith Camels as F2bs. Both got introduced about the same time – the Bristol Fighter just edging it by a few weeks, in April 1917. By September 1917 there were 98 Camels with active RFC RNAS units compared with around 38 Bristol Fighters.

By February 1918 this had jumped to around 210 Camels and 105 F2bs. Camels were beginning to peak in numbers around August 1918, when almost 370 were with active squadrons, and this number held up – actually still increasing - through to the end of the war - 385 Camels were in place with units at the Armistice (i.e. they weren't on the wane – aircraft like Snipes were coming in effectively alongside Camels – there were 43 Snipes with active units at the Armistice). Meanwhile in these closing months there were never more than about 110 Bristol Fighters.

The RAF was still flying Camels around France 6 months later - witnessed by various Casualty Reports etc.

Trevor

Thanks for the elucidation. I genuinely thought they were disappearing quite fast by the end of the war with Snipes already taking over and Salamanders close to full acceptance.

Cheer ho

John.

[RobWToronto]

Its 10 years later but this discussion has been really helpful.  I'm building a game around WWI fighters and needed a comparison of these two aircraft.

The player will get to pick from these two planes in the final set of missions in which they will face the Red Baron. 

I get the sense that the Camel should get better frontal firepower but the Bristol should be harder to shoot down and have more bombs.  So that's how I will build it.

Any thoughts?