Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

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.

Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

Sopwith Camel

Fokker Dr. I

Neither was better, it's an even match.

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant General

Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant General

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Recruit

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads