WW1 Aircraft Photos (1 Viewer)

[Musec04]

Hello,

A nice photo of Sopwith Snipe E8084 of 43 Squadron.

WW1 Sopwith Snipe Biplane Pilot Jim Herriston ?? message on back RP Postcard H58 | eBay

WW1 Sopwith Snipe British Fighter Airplane E8084 Pilot Jim Herriston ??.

www.ebay.com

Regards,

Clint

 

[Wurger]

 

[Steve Hnz]

Never been a fan of the Snipe, a fatter, uglier version of the Camel, a nice photo nonetheless which conveys my impressions perfectly.

 

[Snautzer01]

Never been a fan of the Snipe, a fatter, uglier version of the Camel, a nice photo nonetheless which conveys my impressions perfectly.

Steve has a point. I made a scientific study of both and would like to share the results

Here:

Spoiler: Complete scientific comperison study Snipe vs Camel

 

[Wurger]

 

[Musec04]

I can't match Snautzer's reply to Steve in the Sopwith Snipe thread,but here at least is a more aesthetic aircraft than a Sopwith Snipe, RNAS Bristol Scout 3084

Bristol Scout C. | eBay

A 14 x 9 cm photo of a Bristol Type C 3034. The item is in G/VG condition. I do combine postage.

www.ebay.co.uk

Regards,

Clint

 

[Gnomey]

Nice shots!

 

[Musec04]

Today, a couple of Curtiss H-12 at rest

HAMPTON ROADS, VA: WWI Navy Amphibious Biplanes 770 & 781, US Naval Air Station | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for HAMPTON ROADS, VA: WWI Navy Amphibious Biplanes 770 & 781, US Naval Air Station at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

Regards,

Clint

 

[Wurger]

PS. again, please source the images you post. Unless you are the owner.

 

[nuuumannn]

I recently spoke to a pilot who is current on both the Snipe and Camel - surely a rare thing in this day and age (I met and spoke with two, in fact!) and he said that the Camel's secret was its manoeuvrability and once mastered was a deadly opponent, but it was characterised by its short range and difficult handling for novice pilots, whereas the Snipe was, in his opinion more like a long-range escort fighter rather than an interceptor. In fact, there were plans according to him to fly Snipes as escorts on long range bombing operations using Handley Page V.1500s into German territory. The Snipe was less manoeuvrable and had a greater range and it possessed better performance overall than the Camel. It had a more powerful engine than the Camel in the Bentley BR.II, and the same armament but was more sophisticated in its systems, such as fuel pressurisation and power management. The Snipe wasn't meant to emulate the Camel, its bigger two-bay wing emphasised strength rather than nimbleness. The Camel's traits post war went into aircraft such as the Gloster Grebe and Gloster Gauntlet.

_ADP1764

_ADP1766

 

[Wurger]

 

[MikeMeech]

I recently spoke to a pilot who is current on both the Snipe and Camel - surely a rare thing in this day and age (I met and spoke with two, in fact!) and he said that the Camel's secret was its manoeuvrability and once mastered was a deadly opponent, but it was characterised by its short range and difficult handling for novice pilots, whereas the Snipe was, in his opinion more like a long-range escort fighter rather than an interceptor. In fact, there were plans according to him to fly Snipes as escorts on long range bombing operations using Handley Page V.1500s into German territory. The Snipe was less manoeuvrable and had a greater range and it possessed better performance overall than the Camel. It had a more powerful engine than the Camel in the Bentley BR.II, and the same armament but was more sophisticated in its systems, such as fuel pressurisation and power management. The Snipe wasn't meant to emulate the Camel, its bigger two-bay wing emphasised strength rather than nimbleness. The Camel's traits post war went into aircraft such as the Gloster Grebe and Gloster Gauntlet.

View attachment 750605_ADP1764

View attachment 750606_ADP1766

Hi
As regards "range" or rather endurance during WW1, the comments made about the Camel as compared with the Snipe are not strictly correct for ordinary Snipes. Depending on the type of Camel and its particular engine the endurance of the type was between 2 1/4 and 3 hrs. The Snipe was 3 hrs (prototype was 2 1/4 hrs), the long range escort version (Mark.Ia for daylight escort in IAF, so not HPs) was 4 1/2 hrs. In comparison the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII had 1 1/2 hrs. endurance, while the Albatros D.III and D.V/Va had 2 hrs.

Mike

 

[nuuumannn]

As regards "range" or rather endurance during WW1, the comments made about the Camel as compared with the Snipe are not strictly correct for ordinary Snipes. Depending on the type of Camel and its particular engine the endurance of the type was between 2 1/4 and 3 hrs. The Snipe was 3 hrs (prototype was 2 1/4 hrs), the long range escort version (Mark.Ia for daylight escort in IAF, so not HPs) was 4 1/2 hrs. In comparison the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII had 1 1/2 hrs. endurance, while the Albatros D.III and D.V/Va had 2 hrs.

What do you mean "ordinary Snipe", Mike? The guy I interviewed has insight into these things neither you nor I possess. He explained that while the Snipe was manoeuvrable, the stick forces were greater in the Snipe than the Camel, which made it more difficult to coax into manoeuvring. This made a difference for pilots transitioning onto the Camel because of the speed at which it could be thrown into manoeuvres, depending on which direction of course, given gyroscopic forces. Going from the Camel to the Snipe and the stick forces and other factors become noticeable.

Nevertheless, I would be more inclined to believe this guy's account, to be frank. Bear in mind these aircraft are not merely home-built replicas built from commercially available plans. These are as authentic as possible in their recreation, with almost all of them incorporating original engines and components from the period. The only ones not powered by original engines are the Dr I and the Triplane. All the others have Clerget, Le Rhone, Benz, RAF.1a, RAF.4a, Renault, Beardmore, Liberty, Falcon, Bentley BR.II, Oberusel, and so forth powering them. They do not sacrifice original instrumentation or systems for the sake of modernity. Therefore, their flying and handling characteristics are pretty much as they would have been back then.

John Lanham has vast aviation experience as a pilot. He was a former RNZAF A-4 pilot who flew precision aerobatics with the forces before graduating onto airliners, and has flown a wide variety of warbird types, from Harvards, to Spitfires, P-40s, Mustangs and so forth, aside from working with TVAL and having flown all their aircraft at some stage or another. I also spoke with Andy Vincent, current TVAL chief pilot. Both these guys have very useful insights into these aircraft and their operation.

Albatros D II cockpit.

_ADP1639

 

[Wurger]

 

[MikeMeech]

What do you mean "ordinary Snipe", Mike? The guy I interviewed has insight into these things neither you nor I possess. He explained that while the Snipe was manoeuvrable, the stick forces were greater in the Snipe than the Camel, which made it more difficult to coax into manoeuvring. This made a difference for pilots transitioning onto the Camel because of the speed at which it could be thrown into manoeuvres, depending on which direction of course, given gyroscopic forces. Going from the Camel to the Snipe and the stick forces and other factors become noticeable.

Nevertheless, I would be more inclined to believe this guy's account, to be frank. Bear in mind these aircraft are not merely home-built replicas built from commercially available plans. These are as authentic as possible in their recreation, with almost all of them incorporating original engines and components from the period. The only ones not powered by original engines are the Dr I and the Triplane. All the others have Clerget, Le Rhone, Benz, RAF.1a, RAF.4a, Renault, Beardmore, Liberty, Falcon, Bentley BR.II, Oberusel, and so forth powering them. They do not sacrifice original instrumentation or systems for the sake of modernity. Therefore, their flying and handling characteristics are pretty much as they would have been back then.

John Lanham has vast aviation experience as a pilot. He was a former RNZAF A-4 pilot who flew precision aerobatics with the forces before graduating onto airliners, and has flown a wide variety of warbird types, from Harvards, to Spitfires, P-40s, Mustangs and so forth, aside from working with TVAL and having flown all their aircraft at some stage or another. I also spoke with Andy Vincent, current TVAL chief pilot. Both these guys have very useful insights into these aircraft and their operation.

Albatros D II cockpit.

View attachment 750730_ADP1639

Hi
The 'ordinary' Snipe is the standard production machine not the longer range escort 7F.1a. I took my figures from Jack Bruce's 'British Aeroplanes 1914-18', this book has its performance figures taken from wartime trials reports (he gives their number and date of report), these tests were undertaken by pilots who had some experience on these types of machines. Machines could vary quite a lot in performance due to how long the aircraft or engine had been in use and the quality of maintenance undertaken by the wartime mechanics. Pilots could also have their machines rigged differently from production to give them a higher speed or higher altitude, usually at the cost of something else.

I don't think any modern pilot has flown Camels with every type of engine they used during WW1, all which could give different performances, however, they can give an insight into the handling and some performance figures, although all these current flying WW1 aircraft types are 'special' and not standard production or maintained to wartime standards. Obviously none have been flown by them operationally of course. A Camel was not short ranged compared with German fighters and they regularly flew quite deep into enemy territory to attack German airfields with bombs and mgs. 2F.1 Camels had an endurance of 3 hrs. which is the same as an 'ordinary' production Snipe, at least this is what the WW1 test reports show. None of the aircraft flying today are 'ordinary' production machines and are certainly not treated the same as they were during WW1.

I have every respect for the pilots flying these types today but we also must acknowledge that the aircraft they fly and the way they are flown is not totally the same as the pilots and machines did during WW1, they would not be allowed to.

Mike

 

[nuuumannn]

The 'ordinary' Snipe is the standard production machine not the longer range escort 7F.1a. I took my figures from Jack Bruce's 'British Aeroplanes 1914-18', this book has its performance figures taken from wartime trials reports (he gives their number and date of report), these tests were undertaken by pilots who had some experience on these types of machines. Machines could vary quite a lot in performance due to how long the aircraft or engine had been in use and the quality of maintenance undertaken by the wartime mechanics. Pilots could also have their machines rigged differently from production to give them a higher speed or higher altitude, usually at the cost of something else.

I don't think any modern pilot has flown Camels with every type of engine they used during WW1, all which could give different performances, however, they can give an insight into the handling and some performance figures, although all these current flying WW1 aircraft types are 'special' and not standard production or maintained to wartime standards. Obviously none have been flown by them operationally of course. A Camel was not short ranged compared with German fighters and they regularly flew quite deep into enemy territory to attack German airfields with bombs and mgs. 2F.1 Camels had an endurance of 3 hrs. which is the same as an 'ordinary' production Snipe, at least this is what the WW1 test reports show. None of the aircraft flying today are 'ordinary' production machines and are certainly not treated the same as they were during WW1.

I have every respect for the pilots flying these types today but we also must acknowledge that the aircraft they fly and the way they are flown is not totally the same as the pilots and machines did during WW1, they would not be allowed to.

Mike, regardless, because their impressions don't necessarily match what contemporary reports state it doesn't make what these guys say any less relevant or incorrect. You claim that no modern pilot has flown every variant of the Camel, I would make the claim about the Great War, too, with the exception perhaps of Harry Hawker. Regarding the Snipe, the RAF Museum has an early mark of Snipe rebuilt by TVAL, Lanham flew that one, too, so again, I believe him. No one is saying you have to, but if it were between him and you, you don't stand a chance as an authoritative voice about these aircraft, regardless of your sources. Let's put it this way, these modern pilots have the benefit of knowing what was written about these aircraft also, you don't honestly think they go into flying them blind, do you?

Not only that, but to assume their experiences are somehow inauthentic compared to wartime notes is loaded with hubris considering their objectivity and experience flying so many different types. That their experiences are different to wartime accounts does not discount their experiences in any way shape or form. That the aircraft were not flown as they are today is beside the point. The reality was that combat was not always balls-to-the-wall at every opportunity and at extreme power settings and extreme manoeuvres all the time. When aircraft were flown like that, pilots tended not to come back. Combat was described as long periods of boredom in transit followed by extreme measures in short bursts.

I'd wager that Lanham and Vincent and so forth have flown these aircraft as close to operationally possible, simply because they have to have to enable certification. That they have these wartime notes available to them means they are aware of the foibles in a way that early pilots were not, which puts them in a far better position to evaluate them than contemporary pilots simply because they have flown a variety of types that their wartime equals simply could not have flown. Test pilots are in a better position to evaluate performance and handling because of their experience on various types and their objectivity, so why would these modern pilots' experiences be any different?

 

[MikeMeech]

Mike, regardless, because their impressions don't necessarily match what contemporary reports state it doesn't make what these guys say any less relevant or incorrect. You claim that no modern pilot has flown every variant of the Camel, I would make the claim about the Great War, too, with the exception perhaps of Harry Hawker. Regarding the Snipe, the RAF Museum has an early mark of Snipe rebuilt by TVAL, Lanham flew that one, too, so again, I believe him. No one is saying you have to, but if it were between him and you, you don't stand a chance as an authoritative voice about these aircraft, regardless of your sources. Let's put it this way, these modern pilots have the benefit of knowing what was written about these aircraft also, you don't honestly think they go into flying them blind, do you?

Not only that, but to assume their experiences are somehow inauthentic compared to wartime notes is loaded with hubris considering their objectivity and experience flying so many different types. That their experiences are different to wartime accounts does not discount their experiences in any way shape or form. That the aircraft were not flown as they are today is beside the point. The reality was that combat was not always balls-to-the-wall at every opportunity and at extreme power settings and extreme manoeuvres all the time. When aircraft were flown like that, pilots tended not to come back. Combat was described as long periods of boredom in transit followed by extreme measures in short bursts.

I'd wager that Lanham and Vincent and so forth have flown these aircraft as close to operationally possible, simply because they have to have to enable certification. That they have these wartime notes available to them means they are aware of the foibles in a way that early pilots were not, which puts them in a far better position to evaluate them than contemporary pilots simply because they have flown a variety of types that their wartime equals simply could not have flown. Test pilots are in a better position to evaluate performance and handling because of their experience on various types and their objectivity, so why would these modern pilots' experiences be any different?

Hi
I was questioning the comment that the Camel was "short ranged" which in WW1 Scout terms it certainly was not, especially when compared with German Scouts, particularly Fokkers (this may indicate their doctrine of staying their side of the lines). I presume if the modern pilot has flown both the current Camel and Fokker Dr.1 he will know that the latter has rather less endurance than the Camel. Jack Bruce has the following data from various tests, first the Camel variants:

Then the Snipe:

With the SE.5/5a as comparison:

I to have talked to pilots who have flown the current WW1 types and their information is useful. However, I asked one, reference the RE.8, if he thought if some of the items that were attached to the type for operations would have any handling effects, he replied that in his opinion they would not. That was useful but it was an opinion not a tested 'fact'. Especially when comments at the time (1917) were that with all the equipment that was being fitted for operations the aircraft performance was reduced and manoeuvrability was effected.

Modern pilots experience and opinions are useful but WW1 tests and pilots opinions are also important.

Mike

 

[Musec04]

A nice photo of a captured Nieuport 17,although it would be even nicer were the rudder viewable. But I believe that it is A6718 of 60 Squadron

Foto Frankreich, Flugzeug mit Staffelwappen, Doppeldecker, Franzose 1917 | eBay

Entdecken Sie Foto Frankreich, Flugzeug mit Staffelwappen, Doppeldecker, Franzose 1917 in der groÃen Auswahl bei eBay. Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!

www.ebay.de

Regards,

Clint

 

[nuuumannn]

Modern pilots experience and opinions are useful but WW1 tests and pilots opinions are also important.

I get the impression you haven't really read what I wrote, Mike. I'll say it again. The guys who fly these aircraft today read what was written about these aircraft from first hand sources before they flew them. Did you honestly think they wouldn't have done so? I know for a fact that TVAL representatives scoured the archive at Hendon for source information and other places when researching these aircraft, so they would have had access to exactly the same information as you have, and then some, so please don't be too keen to belittle their efforts. You are just displaying arrogance by saying they are wrong.

 

[Wurger]

A nice photo of a captured Nieuport 17,although it would be even nicer were the rudder viewable. But I believe that it is A6718 of 60 Squadron

View attachment 751807

Foto Frankreich, Flugzeug mit Staffelwappen, Doppeldecker, Franzose 1917 | eBay

Entdecken Sie Foto Frankreich, Flugzeug mit Staffelwappen, Doppeldecker, Franzose 1917 in der groÃen Auswahl bei eBay. Kostenlose Lieferung für viele Artikel!

www.ebay.de

Regards,

Clint

Actually I have some doubt abot that .... it looks like the "A" was of different shape and the "3" od the different size. But certainly I may be wrong.

the pic source: the net.