# Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 1, 2009)

Arguably one the greatest duo of fighters in history, alongside the Spitfire and the Bf 109, or the F-86 Sabre and the Mig-15. 

Vote your pick for the better fighter.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 2, 2009)

I've voted for the Camel. While the Dr.1 is possibly more famous, due to it's role as the final mount of von Richthofen, the Camel served in larger numbers and had a decisive role to play in the air war on the Western Front. It was also a more structurally sound airframe than Dr.1, which I believe had a habit of losing it's top wing in flight...


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 2, 2009)

Even though my favorite WWI pilot flew the DR1 (Voss), I have to go with the Camel as well.


----------



## Waynos (May 2, 2009)

The Fokker Dr.I was the pre-eminent fighter on the Western front, sweeping all before it, until the Camel showed up and put a stop to all that.


----------



## timshatz (May 2, 2009)

I'm not positive but I think the Camel came out before the DR1. Difference of a couple of months at most. 

Go with the Camel. Tricky bird to fly, very tricky. But a good bird once you got your hands around it. Also, it never had any problems with structure. Not as clean a designe as the DR1, less advanced, but a bigger engine and wonderful turn to the right.

DR1. Good bird, but always unstable. Slipping and sliding due to that rudder. Not wild about the engine either. Some of them were captured from Neuiports. But, as Voss showed, in the right hands, they were magnificent. 

Still with the Camel.


----------



## Waynos (May 2, 2009)

You know tim I do believe you're right. I think I'm confusing my timelines and it was the Albatros that the Camel usurped.


----------



## Graeme (May 2, 2009)

Anyone know the breakdown of the Baron's eight Camel's? Were they all shot down in the Dr.I? I understand he flew numerous aircraft.


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Graeme,

>Anyone know the breakdown of the Baron's eight Camel's? Were they all shot down in the Dr.I? I understand he flew numerous aircraft.

From David Barker, "Manfred von Richthofen - The Man and the Aircraft he flew":

J.M.L. Millett +, W.G. Iwamy POW: Fokker Dr. I 152/17
D. Cameron +, W. Knox +: Fokker Dr. I 477/17
H.W. Ransom +, S.P. Smith +: Fokker Dr. I 127/17
R. Raymond-Barker +, D. G. Lewis POW: Fokker Dr. I 425/17

(+ denotes pilot was killed - 6 out of 8. "No Parachute" ... grim business.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (May 2, 2009)

Thanks Henning! Did he ever vocalise what he considered his "best" mount was, or has popular folklore decided for him?


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

Isn't this one of those between a rock and a hard place whatsits? I have no idea!


----------



## HoHun (May 3, 2009)

Hi Graeme,

>Thanks Henning! Did he ever vocalise what he considered his "best" mount was, or has popular folklore decided for him?

I'm not a Richthofen expert, but from the list in the abovementioned book, he scored all 19 of his last 21 victories in the Fokker Dr. I, with the two exceptions falling into the time when the Dr. I was grounded.

Hm, let's see - comment on his fight against A.F. Bird (POW), who put up a spirited fight near ground level in his Sopwith Pup:

"The Fokker triplane F1 102/17 was undoubtedly better and more reliable than the English machine."

He is also quoted with comments on the Albatros, showing that he valued turn rate, roll rate, speed and diving ability, while criticizing the Albatros D. III for not being able to climb in a turn, mediocre roll rate and doubtful strength for a 1000 m dive.

From memory, in "The Red Combat Pilot" (obviously written by a hack writer, and published during wartime so that it cannot be expected to contain tactical information) Richthofen also praised the Sopwith Pup for its ability to hold altitude or climb in turns, but apparently considered it not strong enough for dives, asking "What good is a machine that climbs well if it can't dive?"

Richthofen started his career as observer, aspiring to join the bomber units at the Western Front. However, when he had a look at their large "Combat Aircraft" (as the Germans called their bombers), he concluded that these "Flying Fortresses" (his words, in WW1!) were not fit for combat, and became a single-seater pilot instead.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (May 3, 2009)

Thanks for looking into that for me Henning!


----------



## The Basket (May 3, 2009)

The DR1 was a marginal slow aeroplane more famous for the pilots who flew it.

It was so slow it couldn't even catch up the latest bombers.

But it was agile...ie unstable.

It had a very good climb rate and even a high altitiude ceiling.

But built in very few numbers and quickly replaced by the infinitely better D7.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2009)

I would go for the Camel. It had a significant speed advantage over the Fokker.


----------



## Seawitch (May 17, 2009)

I voted for the Camel too, I know it was hell in a spin and not very fast, but the Fokker Tri plane, a concept tried and dropped by Sopwitch had way too much leading edge to be fast, three wings seemed to be development going back wards .....that said, in the Richthofen film it seems he thought the Tri plane was pure sex,,,,if this is indeed true maybe thats why he flew it.....and come to grief in it too?
Talk about a fatal attraction!


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2009)

I have to go with the Camel. The DR 1 was too slow as well as being poor at altitude, which together with a number of structural failures didn't do it any favours.

It certainly had its fans due to its exceptional maneuverablity and its worth remembering that only just over 300 were built. This compares to about 4,300 Albatros III and V fighters. Had it been as good as its reputation would suggest, then my guess is that more would have been built.


----------



## Seawitch (May 17, 2009)

Excellent footage of the Red Baron and Tri-plane, plus his demise...........

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4JgrNPwIc_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2009)

Between these two aircraft I would go with the Camel as well, however you give me a Fokker D.VII and I will make shreds of that camel. D.VII can be debated as the best fighter of the war, fortunately for the allies did not come out until 1918.


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

So I guess we need a thread that compares the DVII to the Snipe then? That is a conclusion I would be much less sure about than I have with the others.


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2009)

I choose the Dr I. In an age when speed and dive/climb was not the forte of many crates, the Dr I. had the manuevrabilty to dogfight. I'm no expert and its purely a gut feeling, but I was impressed with what Voss did and that kind of plane I would want to have.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 19, 2009)

Here's one time where the Sopwith Snipe met the Dr. VII. 


One of the most famous incidents in which the Snipe was involved, occurred on 27 October 1918 when Canadian Major William G. Barker from No. 201 Squadron RAF flew over the Forêt de Mormalin France. Barker's Snipe (No. E8102) had been brought with him for personal evaluation purposes in connection with his UK-based training duties and was therefore operationally a "one-off". The engagement with enemy aircraft occurred at the end of a two-week posting to renew his combat experience as Barker was returning to the UK. While on his last operation over the battlefields of France, Major Barker attacked a two-seater German aircraft and swiftly shot it down. However, Barker was soon attacked by a Fokker D.VII, which after some resistance, was shot down by the Canadian. Barker, by himself, was subsequently attacked by a formation of about 60 D.VIIs, an aircraft widely considered to be the ultimate German fighter design of the First World War. In the engagement, Barker was wounded three times, losing consciousness momentarily on each occasion. The ensuing melee was observed by hundreds of thousands of Allied troops. The final combat report of the incident (not written by Barker, due to his injuries) lists claims for three enemy aircraft (although four are referred to in the citation for his Victoria Cross). Barker managed to return to British lines safely where he crashed his Snipe.


Sopwith Snipe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 20, 2009)

I am in the middle of watching "Airpower" on ETV and it stated due to the engine on the Soprwith Camel, half of all the pilots lost while fyling it were during take off and landings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I am in the middle of watching "Airpower" on ETV and it stated due to the engine on the Soprwith Camel, half of all the pilots lost while fyling it were during take off and landings.



I question the validity of that statement but no doubt the attrition rate for the Camel was high.

A very light and high torque aircraft, it was a handful for even the most skilled pilot of the day, but then again pilots in WW1 were thrown into these aircraft with barely 100 hours.

This is from Wiki - pretty interesting if sources could be verified.

_*The Camel soon gained an unfortunate reputation with student pilots. The Clerget engine was particularly sensitive to fuel mixture control, and incorrect settings often caused the engine to choke and cut out during takeoff. Many crashed due to mishandling on takeoff when a full fuel tank affected the center of gravity. In level flight, the Camel was markedly tail-heavy. Unlike the Triplane, the Camel lacked a variable incidence tailplane, so that the pilot had to apply constant forward pressure on the control stick to maintain a level attitude at low altitude. However the machine could also be rigged in such a way that at higher altitudes it could be flown "hands off." A stall immediately resulted in a spin and the Camel was particularly noted for its vicious spinning characteristics.*_


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 20, 2009)

There might be some validity to it. I found this on Sopwith Camel - The Aerodrome - Aces and Aircraft of World War I

"Noted for its tendency to kill inexperienced flyers, many pilots feared its vicious spin characteristics. Until sufficient speed was developed during takeoff, Camel pilots maintained full right rudder to counteract the torque the rotary engine. Failure to do so often resulted in a ground loop with the Camel crashing on its starboard wingtip. During World War I, 413 pilots died in combat and 385 pilots died from non-combat related causes while flying the Sopwith Camel."


----------



## gumbyk (May 21, 2009)

So, the Camel itself killed almost as many of its pilots as the Germans did?
I have heard that before about it, and for that reason alone, my vote goes to the Fokker.


----------



## Waynos (May 21, 2009)

gumbyk said:


> So, the Camel itself killed almost as many of its pilots as the Germans did?
> I have heard that before about it, and for that reason alone, my vote goes to the Fokker.




Whilst the figure is undoubtedly high, I would find it a stretch to say that 385 is almost as many as 1,413 

Also, the figure should not be judged in isolation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> There might be some validity to it. I found this on Sopwith Camel - The Aerodrome - Aces and Aircraft of World War I
> 
> "Noted for its tendency to kill inexperienced flyers, many pilots feared its vicious spin characteristics. Until sufficient speed was developed during takeoff, Camel pilots maintained full right rudder to counteract the torque the rotary engine. Failure to do so often resulted in a ground loop with the Camel crashing on its starboard wingtip. During World War I, 413 pilots died in combat and 385 pilots died from non-combat related causes while flying the Sopwith Camel."


That site is usually good on their data - of the 385 that died from non-combat related causes while flying the Sopwith Camel, one would have to pull out mechanical and weather related causes.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Whilst the figure is undoubtedly high, I would find it a stretch to say that 385 is almost as many as 1,413



I did the same thing when I first read it: WW1, then it states 413 combat losses (WW1, 413....)


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That site is usually good on their data - of the 385 that died from non-combat related causes while flying the Sopwith Camel, one would have to pull out mechanical and weather related causes.



That's an excellent point. If the tv show was correct, it leaves no room for either of those.


----------



## Waynos (May 21, 2009)

Ha ha! Time to wipe my specs I think.Sorry gumbyk


----------



## Milosh (Oct 31, 2009)

The inspiration for the Dr.1 was the Sopwith Triplane.

Why didn't the Camel have a trimable stab like the Pup and Snipe?


----------



## Patton (Jan 23, 2013)

I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings which meant that if you needed to build up speed you could but as soon as you want to turn "well **** there goes a wing" or "dammit hes on my six" the Dr.1 and the Sopwith Camel both have 2 machine guns but each one is a copy of the same gun just made differently to be air cooled now I am not sure but I believe that the German gun had a higher ROF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2013)

Patton said:


> I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong



Where on this thread or any where on this forum was that ever mentioned?


Patton said:


> speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight



Not really - the only thing increased speed will do is limit your turn rate at a given bank angle. If you increase your bank angle while maintaining level flight, your turn rate will increase but you will reduce airspeed, that's how it works....



Patton said:


> and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings.


and your evidence of this?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 23, 2013)

Patton said:


> I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings which meant that if you needed to build up speed you could but as soon as you want to turn "well **** there goes a wing" or "dammit hes on my six" the Dr.1 and the Sopwith Camel both have 2 machine guns but each one is a copy of the same gun just made differently to be air cooled now I am not sure but I believe that the German gun had a higher ROF.


Whew! That is one long sentence.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 23, 2013)

The DR1 did have a thicker airfoil than the Sopwith, had more internal bracing.
Didn't seem to help it much , the Fokker had all the trouble with folding wings, not the Camel. So much of a problem that the early models were grounded till the problem was traced to faulty workmanship (rushed) and bad glue. That was corrected, then the upper wings started coming off.


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2013)

At the end of the day, if the DR1 had been nearly as good as its reputation they would have built more than 320 of them.


----------



## steve51 (Jan 24, 2013)

The WW1 author John Guttman did a study on Camel/Dr1 engagements during March through May 1918, and found that during this period, 32 Camel pilots were casualties ( 19 Kia, 5 wia, 8 pow ), while 13 Dr1 pilots were casualties ( 4 Kia, 5 wia, 4 pow ). The German records are not complete, so they may have suffered more than that, but with that caveat, the Dr1 seems to have won the exchange ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2013)

steve51 said:


> The WW1 author John Guttman did a study on Camel/Dr1 engagements during March through May 1918, and found that during this period, 32 Camel pilots were casualties ( 19 Kia, 5 wia, 8 pow ), while 13 Dr1 pilots were casualties ( 4 Kia, 5 wia, 4 pow ). The German records are not complete, so they may have suffered more than that, but with that caveat, the Dr1 seems to have won the exchange ratio.


Unless you can analyze the complete exchange this just proves that the DR1 pilots "may" have had the upper hand on their British adversaries and doesn't necessarily prove which aircraft was the better combat aircraft.


----------



## steve51 (Jan 24, 2013)

FLYBOYJ,
You're absolutely right, other factors besides aircraft performance affect exchange ratio. The tactical environment of each engagement is very important. IMO the aircraft were pretty well matched regarding combat performance.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2013)

Dr Is were only ever an interim and were only issued to select units with crack pilots, in lieu of the appearance of the D VII, which Richtofen was eagerly awaiting before his death.

Structurally, the Dr I was more advanced than the Camel, which was of conventional construction. Reinhold Platz concentrated on welded steel tube fuselage with one piece wings made with a central box spar, which lost its integrity due to faulty manufacture. Originally he wanted full cantilever wings, but wing flutter necessitated the fitting of interplane struts.

I'd still choose the Camel over the Dr I - the latter has only become popular because of Richtofen, not for any inherent qualities it possesses; the average German pilot was deemed unable to handle it and the Jastas were keenly awaiting the D VII, whose excellent reputation was certainly justified. At the time the Dr I's reputation was certainly not how we view it today.

I got to speak with a guy who has flown a rotary powered Camel repro (not often you meet these!), he raised an interesting point regarding Camel losses on take off and landing. One thing that had happened to him flying a Camel was that the fuel pump stopped working; naturally causing the aeroplane to crash. The Camel's fuel pump was driven by a small propeller generator, so it relied on this for pressure; no propeller rotation = no pressure.


----------



## Readie (Feb 19, 2013)

Both awesome fighters in the right hands and rightly celebrated.
But, I would prefer to be in a SE5a or Spad....
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Feb 25, 2013)

Airframe and engine technology were advancing so fast during 1914 to 1918 that 6 months newer design was often a decisive advantage. 

Hs.8 engine which powered so many French built aircraft is a good example. Multiple versions of this engine, many of which were unreliable. If you get a good engine then your SPAD is an effective fighter aircraft. However there's probably an even chance your engine will be defective. That cannot be confidence inspiring during combat operations.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 25, 2013)

I think engine failure might have been low down on a pilots list of things to worry about. Several WW1 aircraft had a history of structural failure in flight, The Albatross DV had a lower wing failure problem that was never solved, the Fokker DrI had several upper wing failures in the early models, Lothar Richthofen was lucky to survive after a upper wing failed in his DrI.
Some Nieuports like to shed their wing fabric, these are faults that would usually result in a pilot's death.
Then once combat was entered most single seaters had the gas tank right in front of the pilot, except the Sopwith Camel. It was right behind the pilot, i'll bet that was a comfort. 
At least if a engine failed, if it wasn't a catastrophic failure that resulted in a engine fire, a pilot had a good chance of making a controlled landing.


----------



## beitou (Dec 12, 2013)

I prefer the camel, the DR 1 was just that little bit too slow. It was not a hugh margin but the camel still had the ability to start and break off combat at its choosing.


----------

