SE5a or Sopwith Camel?

[Jonathan Saunders]

I was hoping the aviation enthusiasts amongst us would like to comment on which aircraft they believe to have been the better fighter aeroplane - the SE5a or the Sopwith Camel. Also how did these planes evolve ie. what unforeseen problems materialised once they were released to service and how were these problems resolved, if at all.

I am no engineer but my instinct tells me the SE5a was the better plane, more versatile armament, I assume faster maximum speed, she handled easier than the pull of the big rotary engine and I expect she could take more combat punishment in a Hurricane-esq style. But I might be totally wrong ...

Thanks and regards,

Jon S

[Bob H]

I’ll probably get shot down in flames for these opinions , but here goes.

The SE5a was a good stable gun platform, but fairly manoeuvrable and fast for its time. The Camel was deliberately unstable and with the torque of the rotary engine could turn incredibly quickly.

Thus they suit different styles of fighting; the Camel is an out and out dogfighter whereas the SE5a is more for planned tactics.

Many of the high scoring RFC pilots used the SE5a, but more German aircraft were brought down by the Camel.

On the down side IIRC more Camels were destroyed in accidents than were shot down in combat.

Not a lot to choose between them.

Regards

Bob

[MikeW]

I’ll probably get shot down in flames for these opinions , but here goes.

Bob,

are you flying a Camel or an SE5?

[Bob H]

Mike

Without a parachute, does it matter.

Regards

Bob

[FAAAEd]

Bob,

are you flying a Camel or an SE5?

If it were an SE5 he would more likely have suffered a forced landing due to engine failure, now an SE5a on the other hand ...?

[FAAAEd]

On the down side IIRC more Camels were destroyed in accidents than were shot down in combat.Regards

Bob

Which has been said of the Seafire from carriers during allied landings in Sicily, Italy and France during WW2.

[MikeW]

Without a parachute, does it matter.

Well yes - with the SE5 you had the speed to accept or decline the combat (i.e. you could run away if you didn't fancy your chances), with the Camel you had no option but to fight your way out of trouble - on the positive side, the Camel was so unstable and twitchy the enemy pilot was never sure which direction it was going

Anyway, I don't think you are going to get flamed with what you said - the SE5 was a stable gun platform. Tich Rochford of Naval 3 likened the Camel bullet pattern as being akin to the rose on a watering can - gave you good coverage of course but no particular concentration - he found the best technique for ensuring a victory was to sneak up close and stick the Vickers guns in the enemy's ear. It worked for him!

Mike

[Dolphin]

What unforeseen problems materialised once they were released to service?

John

One perhaps unforeseen problem that certainly affected the pilots of the two aeroplanes is the way they were used in the last year of the War. Camels were seen as being the better ground attack machines, due to their not having a vulnerable radiator, and the greater volume of fire from two belt-fed Vickers compared to one Vickers and a Lewis. Hence, in a rough generalisation, Camel pilots spent much of their time at very low altitude shooting at infantry and artillery, while their counterparts who flew SE 5as were employed at higher altitudes fighting against enemy aircraft.

A lot of Camels were victims to ground fire, and it must have affected the pilots' outlook. For a glimpse into the life of Camel pilots in 1918, a read of V M Yeates' Winged Victory is well worthwhile. He flew with Nos 46 and 80 Sqns, and knew what he was writing about.

Cheers

Gareth

[Jonathan Saunders]

Many thanks to all who have contributed replies. On reflection I'm still backing the SE5a over the Camel.

[Adrian Roberts]

The Camel was deliberately unstable and with the torque of the rotary engine could turn incredibly quickly.

I'd query whether it was deliberately unstable - this was surely just a consequence of having a large rotating mass propelling you, and one reason why rotary engines reached the limits of their development at about 150 hp. I wonder how successful the Camel would have been without being able to do a flick left turn? With its short fuselage it would still have been manouverable, and would have killed less pilots in training.

I often think the SE5a pilots must have cursed the Lewis gun on the top wing: at high altitude with low oxygen levels it was very difficult to change the drum, and lethal to attempt it during combat. So during a dogfight you were stuck with one gun.

Having said that, in a Camel, if one gun jammed, did the other stop also, or not? At least with the SE you had two chances - assuming you had a full drum in the Lewis.

Adrian

[Bob H]

Adrian

What I meant by deliberately unstable was that Herbert Smith the Sopwith designer started with the design of the Pup, used a larger engine and then moved all the heavy items as close to the centre of gravity as possible. The engine was moved back, the gun muzzles were above the engine cowling rather than behind it. The pilot was moved forward and I think the fuel tank was moved forward as well. This meant that the Camel had much less resistance to changing direction than the Pup.

The Pup was a stable flying machine, the Camel was not.

Regards

Bob

[Adrian Roberts]

Bob

What I meant by deliberately unstable was that Herbert Smith the Sopwith designer started with the design of the Pup, used a larger engine and then moved all the heavy items as close to the centre of gravity as possible. The engine was moved back, the gun muzzles were above the engine cowling rather than behind it. The pilot was moved forward and I think the fuel tank was moved forward as well. This meant that the Camel had much less resistance to changing direction than the Pup.

The Pup was a stable flying machine, the Camel was not.

Thats an interesting way of putting it - a bit like modern types such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, which are so unstable the computer has to fly them.

"Nothing new under the sun...."

Adrian

[MikeW]

I think the fuel tank was moved forward as well

Moved back actually, behind the pilot.

The Camel had a low polar moment of inertia due to the concentation of masses. The gyroscopic precession effect of the rotary was very pronounced because of the Camel's lack of resistence to direction change. Also the Camel tended to be rigged "tail heavy" which is not good for stability.

It had to be "flown" all the time which is the main reason it bit so many poor pilots. The need to change the mixture just after takeoff caught a lot of tyros out, no time to look down at the petrol and air levers - if they did it would probably stall and pile in!

[Gyrene]

I often think the SE5a pilots must have cursed the Lewis gun on the top wing: at high altitude with low oxygen levels it was very difficult to change the drum, and lethal to attempt it during combat. So during a dogfight you were stuck with one gun.

How in the world was the pilot supposed to fly the plane and use the Lewis gun at the same time?

[Jonathan Saunders]

How in the world was the pilot supposed to fly the plane and use the Lewis gun at the same time?

Simple! You surprised the enemy by flying underneath them and then focus your attention on shooting upwards. It worked well for Albert Ball.

[Dolphin]

How in the world was the pilot supposed to fly the plane and use the Lewis gun at the same time?

Like the Vickers gun on the fuselage, the overwing Lewis gun was fired by a cable connected to the control column. The tricky thing with the Lewis was pulling it down on its mounting rail to change the 97 round ammunition drum - while still flying and perhaps fighting.

Gareth

[Gyrene]

the overwing Lewis gun was fired by a cable connected to the control column.

I didn't know that which is why I couldn't understand how you could fly the plane and shoot the gun at the same time. I assumed the pilot had to reach up with his arm and squeeze the trigger on the actual gun. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[MikB]

With the gun 2 or 3 feet above the line of sight, I've often wondered how it was possible to shoot the thing with any accuracy. It meant the trajectory crossed the line of sight at a substantial angle at some unique range. Any mistake in the range and you shot high or low by a margin that increased directly with the size of the error, even at distances where you could ignore drop. Presumably you could use the outer ring of the sights compared to the enemy's wingspan if you were making an ideal approach, but deflection shooting must've been mostly spray and pray...

It's no wonder that guns under the pilot's nose seem to've been more generally favoured.

Occasionally the upward shooting technique (used again by German nightfighters in WW2) must've paid off, but that was really only usable against a slower and unalerted target.

No surprise that Biggles was a Camel man.

Regards,

MikB

[BobH]

I didn't know that which is why I couldn't understand how you could fly the plane and shoot the gun at the same time. I assumed the pilot had to reach up with his arm and squeeze the trigger on the actual gun. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Just to clarify designs' the SE5a fuel tank is in front of the pilot and machine gun. The fuel tank both the aux and main are behind the pilot.

Neither plane was prorably MORE effective than the other or at least by much. They both have similar records for their combat histories if my memory serves me, although the Camel did claim more of its own pilots.

Attached is a picture of my 1/4 SE5a for Radio Control.

[BobH]

Just to clarify designs' the SE5a fuel tank is in front of the pilot and machine gun. The fuel tank both the aux and main are behind the pilot.

Neither plane was prorably MORE effective than the other or at least by much. They both have similar records for their combat histories if my memory serves me, although the Camel did claim more of its own pilots.

Attached is a picture of my 1/4 SE5a for Radio Control.

Sorry for any confusion.. I ment that the Camel's fuel tanks were behind the pilot.

[Adrian Roberts]

With the gun 2 or 3 feet above the line of sight, I've often wondered how it was possible to shoot the thing with any accuracy. It meant the trajectory crossed the line of sight at a substantial angle at some unique range.

No more of a problem than the eight guns of a Spitfire spread all along the wings. In both cases, the guns were calibrated to converge their fire at a particular distance (not sure what that distance would have been). In close in dog-fights you would rely on the Vickers; the Lewis would have run out of ammo by then.

True, the Camel's system (and the Albatros's and Fokkers') was less complex

[MikB]

No more of a problem than the eight guns of a Spitfire spread all along the wings. In both cases, the guns were calibrated to converge their fire at a particular distance (not sure what that distance would have been). In close in dog-fights you would rely on the Vickers; the Lewis would have run out of ammo by then.

True, the Camel's system (and the Albatros's and Fokkers') was less complex

Hmmm... yeah... But you got 8 solidly-mounted guns on the Spit, firing De Wilde bullets that sparkle when they hit, and tracers you can see. On the SE5 you got one, on a vvinky-vvanky mounting atop a wing that probably flexes during severe manoeuvres, shooting vanilla ball which you can't see, whether it hits or not. It really ain't the same proposition .

Regards,

MikB

[Martin Bennitt]

Hmmm... yeah... But you got 8 solidly-mounted guns on the Spit, firing De Wilde bullets that sparkle when they hit, and tracers you can see. On the SE5 you got one, on a vvinky-vvanky mounting atop a wing that probably flexes during severe manoeuvres, shooting vanilla ball which you can't see, whether it hits or not. It really ain't the same proposition .

Regards,

MikB

The SE5 wasn't the only scout to have this mounting. The Nieuport had it, and the later Sopwith Dolphin had a pair of Lewis's, as well as twin Vickers. So it must have been reasonably effective.

cheers Martin B

[MikB]

The SE5 wasn't the only scout to have this mounting. The Nieuport had it, and the later Sopwith Dolphin had a pair of Lewis's, as well as twin Vickers. So it must have been reasonably effective.

cheers Martin B

The French abandoned it as soon as they got working interruptor gear, and Fritz never used the idea at all - that says something . I reckon the crawl-underneath-and-shoot-upward technique was maybe the only way to use it effectively. It was probably one of those design obsessions that seize the British from time to time, like spigot-guns in WW2.

Regards,

MikB

[mcderms]

No more of a problem than the eight guns of a Spitfire spread all along the wings. In both cases, the guns were calibrated to converge their fire at a particular distance (not sure what that distance would have been). In close in dog-fights you would rely on the Vickers; the Lewis would have run out of ammo by then.

True, the Camel's system (and the Albatros's and Fokkers') was less complex

You're talking about the 'Dowding Spread' insitgated by Hugh 'Stuffy' Dowding, WW1 fighter pilot and WW2 RAF boss... He had pilots un-zero their guns to produce an widely spread but unfocused field of fire with the aim of more bulets hitting something. Now when you use a co-ordinated attack of 4-5 Spits or Hurris then the effect could be devastating. Unfortunately in France during 39-40 this proved to have as much effect upon the Luftwaffe as throwing a bag of nails at a barn door. By summer 1940 it had been abandoned with all fighter squadrons zero-ing all right wing guns on a fixed point in front of the aircraft. Usual distance was about 30-50 yards, think.

The reason that this is relevant here is that I also recall that the SE5a and Camel could and did zero there guns so the overwing Lewis hit the same spot as the cowling mounted Vickers.

Personally, I'd have picked almost any thing post 1917 but the Camel as it must have been bad enough trying to stay alive with only the other side to fight, let alone your own machine. Also you had to hit an SE5/a pretty had to knock it down. It's the old Hurri vs. Spit, Mustang vs. Thunderbolt (yes, WW2 I know) arguement. Personally, I prefer a bird who packs a punch but can still carry me back home after a bad day at the office. Ooh er!

So (1) SE5a (2) Nieuport 17 (3) Bristol FE2b (4) SPAD VII (sometimes I like to live dangerously) (5) Camel. This assumes I can't widen the discussion to involve the Snipe or DVII