...AND my father told me a story (no idea how true it really is) from the early days of WWI... The war office called in Orville Wright to discuss the logistics of putting together an Air Force, and what it takes (minimals) to get a plane to fly, to whit, Orville slapped the nearby heavy office desk, and said, "If you can find me an engine with enough power, I'll make this desk take off and fly!" ;o)
According to my grandfather who flew them as a RFC pilot starting in beginning of 1917 until the end of the war. Life expectancy for a new pilot was about 2 weeks or less but that was better than being an officer in the Border Regiment going into 1917 offensives. At least RFC offices and men slept on clean sheets. The Camel could if desired out-turn the enemy because the torque of the engine made a snap role to the right possible. A huge advantage in a dogfight as the Germans were to find out with Camels on the six. That was because the crankshaft was bolted stationary to the frame and the mass of the engine and propeller spun on the shaft. The Camel was a tricky plane to land as all it took was a stiff crosswind or a bit of extra fuel in the carburetor and the plane could flip over when landing. My grandfather found out the hard way as he ended up with a silver plate installed in the the roof of his mouth as he ate the steering stick on a particularly hard landing . He survived the war needing a cane to walk having being wounded 13 times combat flying Camels, not counting the silver plate.
My mother says my grandfather flew one too. He joined the infantry, was wounded twice, and transferred to the RFC. He was involved in the Spanish Civil War in some way, but I don't know what. In WW2, he was one of the many people involved with the Spitfire. People were something else then, eh? There were many just like him.
I never met my grandfather but he knew I was born. He was busy dying at the time. He was in the UK and my parents were here in the US. My own father was a WW2 RAF combat fighter pilot. Who was shot down twice and had his face shot off. Fortunately he was lucky and to get advanced plastic surgery ( palace influence?) which was being pioneered at the time. Otherwise he would have looked like a monster. He had many, many adventures. @@jugbywellington1134
Well back then Ironically there was honer in war pilots were often after crashing in enemy territory were treated well by fellow enemy pilots often drinking and eating telling stories
My father flew the 1 1/2 strutter Spotter version. Yes, they only turned right. Also the throttle was either open or closed - no gradient , and the gun if fitted would jam at higher altitudes when it was cold. Occasionally he took shots at the enemy with a pistol he kept warm in his jacket.
Can't believe he left out Snoopy! Snoopy's exploits as a fighter pilot flying Sopwith Camels during the First World War are legendary. It is believed that the term describing aerial combat-dog fight-was coined by his comrades to describe his tenacity as a soldier of the air. And the gregarious pilot's stories of the war have inspired generations around the world and even to the Moon-in 1969 the Apollo 10 astronauts gave the name Snoopy to their Lunar Module. Snoopy began flying the Camels shortly after they were introduced to the front lines in June 1917. He often joked that he probably crashed more of them than anybody else, but he always returned for another fight, often against the greatest ace of the war, Germany's Manfred von Richthofen, known as The Red Baron. Despite decades of searching by aviation archeologists, none of the Camels flown in combat by Snoopy were believed to exist-until last year. "It was like finding the Holy Grail," stated Museum of Flight Curator, Dan Hagedorn.
That thumbnail looks more like Brit markings on Russian Antonov AN-2 Cabin Biplane from 1947. Maybe with a smaller engine in that dome cowl. Much bigger round tail &horizontal stabilator sits up off body. Plus, there's those big 30ish wheel pants! It's just missing them port-hole windows most Annies would have. Simply a Simmon rouse to get ya in, how "dark skies" he's gone.
"Always treat your kite like you'd treat your woman." "How do you mean sir? Take her home on weekend to meet your mother?" "Ah, no. Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back." Flasheart had the best lines.
Treat your kite like you treat your bird. What, take her home at the weekend to meet your mother? No, get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back. Woof woof!
A shout-out to Captain W E Johns, Camel pilot, whose experiences formed the basis for his fictional character 'Biggles'. Biggles began as a ww1 Camel pilot . Through a great many books, he went on to pilot all manner of aircraft in all sorts of heroic adventures up into the early years of the Cold War. Fond memories of his stories.
Ah, as a little kid I was a Biggles fan. But I reread them as a parent and was shocked. Even by the standards of his time Johns was a virulent racist (try Biggles' African adventures!). Even the most non-PC parent would not hand his kids these books today.
@@kenoliver8913 A product of his time, I would say. By that measure, Biggles himself was not the most liberated or PC individual in literature, but I always question the judging of older characters and creations via modern sensibilities. Very few can hold up to that kind of scrutiny. Biggles himself had faults but was, in many regards, an admirable character.
@@kenoliver8913 yes my father got given Biggles in Africa as a school prize in 1936. I was an avid Biggles reader in the '60's; its difficult to read any of the Biggles books now and understand the racism. It was a very Empire based ideology which I think my family kept to and I have struggled with; i am fortunate to have young people around me who put me right and remind me of my own racism.
@@7thsealord888 Mostly the morality of characters is better judged by the standards of THEIR time, not ours (less so for kids, though). But Johns was a racist even by those standards - it would have been called "colour prejudice" then. To write like that in the 1930s was not harmless.
From what I've heard, it was mostly just the extreme amount of torque and was fairly easy to account for, once you know when and how to expect it. Most new pilots were caught off guard and never had a chance to learn. The torque was present in all aircraft, just the Camel was more extreme. It's partially why aircraft carriers stuck their islands where they did and why latter naval prop aircraft incorporated contra-rotating propellers.
I was lucky enough, at the age of 11, to meet Sir Tommy Sopwith. He related to this aircraft nut how his first job was to try to analyse and work out how to reduce the Camel's worst trait, the spin. He had to take it to height and then induce the dreaded spin after modifications. A charming man who left an indelible mark on me, thanks yo my father who enabled me to talk to such a great person
I didn't know it was Camels for him - but what about Biggles too? An entire series of books that started with the new pilot learning to fly Camels and went on for about 100 books!
About 20 years ago, an older chap near Melbourne built a full scale replica of a Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter in his home garage! It is now on display at Tyabb Air Museum on the Mornington Peninsula near Melbourne.
I am pretty sure I saw something a few years back where they are pretty sure the Red Baron was taken down by ground fire not an air to air shot. I could be wrong in that it may not be 100% proven. Even so, the Camel was a badass plane for its day.
You are absolutely right. Although Brown was hot in his tail, the bullet that killed Richthofen “penetrated from the right underarm and exited next to the left nipple”. I’ve read of 3 possible gunners on the ground who might have made the shot, but also heard that it was most likely an Australian gunner named John “Snowy” Evans who fired the fatal shot.
Yet another example of revisionist history. The hubris of people who believe they’re better qualified to determine what happened 100 years after the event. The original evidence is all long gone, there’s no new evidence, but they presume themselves to be better equipped to determine what happened. Chronology snobbery is another term for it. It’s just a way to sell your book or TV show.
The aluminum seat and small windscreen of the Barons triplane are on display in one of the private dining rooms at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto. When I saw the seat during a mess dinner, there were holes in the back of the seat. One with an upwards trajectory and one directly from behind….so I don’t think it is definitive.
@@patrickmacnamara9874 The evidence is conclusive. A post mortem exam of Richthofen's body showed the bullet that killed him penetrated from the right underarm and exited next to the left nipple. Arthur Roy Brown (credited with the kill) attacked from above and behind Richthofen's left. Even more conclusively, Richthofen could not have continued his pursuit of Wilfred May for as long as he did (up to two minutes after Brown's "attack") had his wound come from Brown.
I was going yo comment exactly that! 😳 Had always assumed they were mounted on the wings or under the fuselage, had no idea they had to be synchronized with the propeller?? That's insane!
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 And the synchronizer was a major invention because they were just chancing it before that. To be fair losing a propeller in a biplane generally isn't the end of the world, they have pretty good glide ratios.
@@Hirosjimma Yep that was the first solution before the synchronizer mechanisms were invented, essentially armored plate for the propellers. Some WWII aircraft had synchronizers also, or they just fired through the propeller hub!
It was a formidable aircraft indeed, the Pup. Even for the British..385 pilots were killed learning to fly the thing...and that was just on the British side alone (1,796 were made). This was the second highest casualty list of any British aircraft, second only to the dreadful RE8. widely regarded as more difficult to fly and gained a reputation in the Royal Flying Corps for being "unsafe" that was never entirely dispelled. In the Sopwith Pup, just to be sure it can competer with the RAE RE8 of how dangerous it was, it killed over 400 British pilots in ground strafing attacks--not mainly in dogfights. It was rightfully feared by its initiators because of its Le Rhône 9C 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary piston engine developing 80 hp which produced a tremendous torque. This led to a very rapid right turn which also had the tendency to push the aircraft nose down. ugh! But that torque also gave the Camel ALMOST unmatched manoeuvrability Iin the hands of capable pilots.The Pup was eventually outclassed by newer German fighters, but it was not completely replaced on the Western Front until the end of 1917. The remaining Pups were relegated to Home Defence and training units.
Most amazing, Sir Tom Sopwith who founded the Sopwith company went on the found the Hawker company, which eventually built the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which Sir Tom lived to see prevail in the Falklands War in 1982.
After T.O.M. Sopwith wound up his aircraft company (to avoid possible tax implications) he founded a new aviation company named after his Australian cheif test pilot, Harry Hawker. Sadly Hawker was killed shortly after.
Although the Camel initially used Clerget ("cler-jay") rotary engines, later versions used a W.O. Bentley engine, which was a thorough re-design of the Clerget. Bentley, a naval officer, later received payment for this work, which he used to build his first Bentley car.
Wars certainly speed on tecnology development research it even occurred during WW2, the creator of the Martin Baker fighter that never got ordered went on to create the first ejection seats for fighter jets, it occurred due to the horror of watching his best friend die when test flying his Prototype version of the Martin Baker fighter
Is anyone old enough to remember the Milton Bradley board game, "Dogfight"? It was by far my favorite game and me and the boys imagined we were fighter pilots and played it all Summer long and whenever possible. Great video, as usual. Thanks.
Yep, I still have my game. . I had repainted the planes as a kid, so I had to watch eBay for 10 years until I found unmolested replacement planes. . . . But I still have the game and all the pieces.
My grandfather was a flight lieutenant in the RNAS and flew Sopwith pups until they switched to Camels. His squadron was flying them for the first time moving airfields within the UK and he and many others crashed. He ended up upside down in a field and a farmers wife brought him a cup of tea as he was uninjured. We still have half of the propeller from the plane that he kept as a memento.
I think I remember reading that the Sopwith Camels tendency to turn better in one direction than the other is why most aircraft carriers have their islands on the starboard side. Although quite how many Sopwith Camels land on the USS Gerald Ford or HMS Queen Elizabeth each day escapes me.
Russia is raiding its museums for tanks. The RN may do the same thing after the 30 F35's are shot down. That is 30 split between the fleet and the RAF! Duxford .ay become a resource, not a display park!
I had the opportunity to fly a replica Pup many years ago and it was an absolute fun aircraft to fly. Ferried it almost 1K miles to it's new owner and heard he ground looped it within a month. Crying shame...
One of the reasons for the altitude performance of the SE5 was to counter the high altitude Zeppelin bombing raids on London. They had been safe from any previous defence system
The F15 first flew in 1972 and is still in frontline service 51 years later now in 2023. If the Sopwith Camel which first flew in 1916 had had a similarily long service life as the F15 as a frontline fighter it would have still been flying attack missions in Vietnam in 1967!!!
Which just goes to show that, for as many horrific things it caused, the cold war, especially at it's peak, spurred on unprecedented scientific developments, just like WW1 and 2 previously did.
Barrage balloons flew in WW1 they are still used occasionally now in conflict zones my comment is just as relevant as yours to the Sopwith camel Ie it's not
I built one of those as a kid in the 60’s. I luckily had a dad who loved history and airplanes. He showed me how to build the plastic ones and eventually balsa planes. He flew me around in a bunch of small planes as a child. Years later I got my license without him knowing and he became my first passenger.
While WW1 was horrific, the air was romanticized. I adore these planes so much. Fokker Dr I and Sopwith Triplane are my two favorites for, obvious reasons.
The Fokker Dr I Triplane also had the same "free right turn" characteristic. The reason for the severe gyroscopic effect was due to their Rotary engines. Unlike WWII Radial engines that had the propeller connected to the drive shaft of the motor. The WWI Rotary engines bolted the drive shaft to the body of the airplane and the propeller was bolted to the cylinders/body of the engine. This caused the entire engine to spin, generating the gyroscopic forces on the plane. Also because of this arrangement, there was no real throttle on a Rotary. It was either on at full throttle, or it was off. This made slowing down to land more than a little difficult. When a modern reproduction WWI Rotary fighter comes into land, you can hear the pilot cutting the engine on and off to control his approach speed. Note: there is a group in New Zealand building "new" WWI planes from the original plans and flying them. Braver men than most.
Nah! Look at Albatros Dr. I. Unfortunately there were only two prototyps before Germay dropped triplanes, but Albatros knew, how to build the most beautiful planes of its time.
@@ReisskIaue Albatros aircraft looked so streamlined because they had plywood skinned fuselages instead of the fabric covered frames more commonly used at the time.
@@ReisskIaue The British also had the Sopwith Tripe, a Triplane. Baron Von Richtoven said the Fokker Dr. I Triplane "climbed like a monkey" when he test flew it. However, the Dr. I had a design flaw and its wings had a bad habit of falling off.
Half of all pilots died or were seriously injured in training. Then a high percentage were killed in the first weeks once deployed to combat. If you were a pilot in WWI and lived any length of time you were the exception.
The Camel was highly unstable which is good when you need to dodge bullets flying at you but bad when the plane can't pull out of the inevitable death dive it puts you into. the reason the Camel had high kill ratios is that only the best pilots were put into them and that's what it took to pull out of those death dives that killed numerous inexperienced pilots.
Not "unstable" as they flew just fine... FIDDLY... which is arguably worse when you consider putting completely NOVICE pilots into them. The unpredictability is what gave fresh pilots a life expectancy of 2 weeks, not instability. Once you got used to the damn thing, you knew it took more than a 40-acre field to make a left turn, but she'd whip back on her own vortex to the right, which presented it's own new set of challenges... Not to mention, nobody (at the time) could quite understand when two dog-fighters flew at each other and by-passed, somehow they ALWAYS came out of it upside down... It would be almost a decade before they figured out what wing-vortices were or how they happened and to expect it... Until that, pilots just warned the noob's that they'd come out of a "head-on" upside down, so they could prepare for it. Maybe next time, pay attention... it really DOES help. Of course, it also helps to know something about aircraft and/or piloting... long as we're here. ;o)
Really ? Exactly how many Sopwith Camels have you flown ? A friend of mine owns a full scale replica with an actual rotary engine, built from original drawings…. He seems to do just fine and has many hours in it. Does it have some real torque effect ? Sure, but it is farrrrrr from an unstable death trap.
The Red Baron was brought down by groundfire from an Australian machine gunner. A single bullet hit Richthofen in the right chest causing his death shortly after a controlled landing.
Arthur Gould Lee's two bocks, "No Parachute" and "Open Cockpit" are a fantastic look into what it was like flying the Sopwith pup in the months after bloody april, and eventually what it was like to fly the Camel in later 1917, and how terrifying those ground strafing missions really were.
"No Parachute" was a favorite. A combination of letters home, and his personal diary entries. A flippant remark as to why he carried a pistol on missions (in a letter)is met with stark reality in his diary, where it's clear the reason to be armed is that if he's trapped in a burning plane, he can jump, or blow his brains out.
Yes, I remember very well that the authorities refused to supply parachutes to the pilots believing that they would jump and will lack "fighting spirits" against the hun. How many lost their lives because of this foolish decision...
They are excellent books. Perhaps they will induce in us respect and discipline, so that we stick to a truthful record of our won lives, rather than 'shooting a line' such that nobody knows what to believe.
@@paoloviti6156 Considering the anecdotal evidence of Germans in WW2 bailing out early when damaged, there's a little something to that. But pilots are worth more than planes in a war, they should bail out!
12:10 While Roy Brown was initially credited with shooting down the Red Baron, most historians now agree that he was killed by an Anti-Air Machine Gunner on the ground.
The Camel killed 385 pilots in accidents (412 were killed in action) there were so many accidents that a two seater version was developed in an attempt to decrease the number killed while learning to fly the thing. My Grandad worked with the fellow who developed the two seater version and described him as 'a nasty piece of work', damning comment from somebody as calm and gentle as Grandad.
My family home is in Kingston on Thames and the sop with factory is just a couple of minutes walk from Kingston train station. Before WWI Tommy Sopwith used to tow his float down to the Thames (by horse) to test them and take off rom there. Sopwith was bought out by Hawker between the wars and the site was used for Hurricane production. The parts were trucked down to Weybridge for final assembly and delivery to the squadrons. After WWII the site was sold to Kingston Polytechnic and was part of their faculty of arts for many years. The newly minted Kingston Universty sold the site to a property developer in the nineties to build dreary over priced flats. Hawker stayed in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames building a large factory a mile up the road in Ham. This site saw the development of both th Hunter and Harrier jets. It ironically fell to the vevelopers around 25 years ago. Heavy sigh!
Just look at what happened to Hatfield (De Havilland) or Woodford (A.V.Roe/Avro). Even Croydon and Brooklands are all just housing, now - and Filton (Bristol Aircraft) is going the same way.
With rotary engines, the crankshaft was generally fixed to the airframe and the airscrew attached to the crankcase. The engine rotated around the fixed crankshaft. Lubrication was a total-loss method using castor oil, the fumes of which had an unfortunate laxative effect on the pilots. The oil entered via the crankshaft and centrifugal force meant the oil couldn't be recirculated. Therefore the oil was mixed with the fuel as in two-stroke engines. What isn't mentioned is the Bristol FB2 and SE 5a were also excellent contemporary British fighters. It's believed now that the "Red Baron" was shot down by ground fire.
As a small boy a decade and a half after the end of WWII and a father who was in the RAF I was fascinated by the Sopwith Camel and the Spitfire. Many thanks for this.
Roy Brown is officially credited with Von Richthofenm but although he played a vital part in chasing the Red Baron, it's almost certain that he was actually killed by an Australian ground machine gunner, The bullet went through his body from side-to-side, and was still inside his flight suit. That implies it had very little energy left, i.e, it was fired at long range. Neither fact is compatible with a shot from a closely pursuing aircraft,
Not to mention Brown attacked from above ,behind and from the Barons Left.The bullet came from the below and from the Barons right. AND the Baron flew on for over 2 miles after Browns attack
Brown apparently did not like being named the man who shot down the Red Baron. He found it burdensome and was constantly getting letters from various people asking him how he did it. I think he found the questions distasteful.
could of been the result of a ricochet, once a bullet hits something relatively solid it can change direction and expend a lot of it's energy. how the pilot was sitting as the bullet struck say the frame of his seat could be enough to have caused the wound that killed him. how likely this happened is a moot point but tragic instances of fate have and continue to take place.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. An American pilot, Colin "Boots" Lebouttilier witnessed Brown's burst, fired from behind and to the right, strike the Baron's cockpit. The plane then jerked and went down. Brown reported that he put a burst into the plane but then he lost sight of it. When doctors examined the Baron's body, they found that the bullet entered behind the right armpits and exited below the left nipple. They determined that the bullet came from behind and to the right and on a slightly downward angle. Their report with the drawings is available online. The Royal Air Force, credited Brown with the kill and have never changed that. Those are the facts. Most kills were credited with less evidence than that. A second pilot witnessed Brown's bullets hit the Baron's cockpit. The angle of the bullet is consistent with where Leboutillier and Brown said he fired from. There has been a dishonest campaign to lie about what happened that seems to have happened about twenty years ago. It airbrushes Leboutlillier out of the story despite the fact that he was in the air battle and witnessed Brown shoot the Baron down. He witnessed the plane jerk and start going down right after he saw Brown's bullets strike the cockpit. Anyone can google Collin "Boots" Leboutlillier and read his eyewitness account. Anyone can go to the online Roy Brown museum and look at the report of the doctors who examined the Baron's body. The effort to smear Brown is disgusting. It is an attack on his honor and that of Lebouttillier.
The Camel wasn't the first aircraft to use a rotary engine - the Pup did too ... as did German and French aircraft early in WW1, in fact the first practical rotary aircraft engine came out in 1913 and the first design even pre-dates the Wright brothers' first flight. Also, the engine wasn't cooled by the propeller acting as a fan to push air over it - the engine rotated with the propeller so was spinning through the airstream. That's how it was cooled.
If the first practical rotary engine didn't appear ’til 1913, how come the Seguin brothers were mass producing Gnome-Rhone engines for pioneer aviators by 1909, and the engines were used to power a number of record breaking flights before 1913. By 1913, there were several other manufacturers of proprietary rotary aero engines.
I think the maim point lost in this engineering video is the reason it could turn 1 way good was because the whole engine rotated with the prop, and the reason it did that was for better cooling, and the reason it needed better cooling is because aircraft flew slower with low compressions, And the reason for that was crap fuel
@@Sports-Jorge Cooling may well have been part of it but I think more important was that the whole assembly acted as a flywheel that kept spinning so that the engine didn't stall when it misfired.
@@Nastyswimmer 👍 oh yea, that was the other benefit. Another earlier design “fixed” cooling issues by drilling holes around the bottom of the cylinders 😅
@@Nastyswimmer These rotaries were controlled by cutting the ignition, so the HAD to be able to carry on when misfiring! The 9 cylinder Rhone could have 3, 6, or all 9 cut at once.
I grew up in the 70s, so Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel fighting the Red Barron got me interested in this aircraft. I've studied WW1 aircraft ever since. Thanks for the great video .
The rate of development of aircraft during the first world war is mind boggling. From machines not far removed from the Bleriot that first crossed the channel in 1909 to professional mechanised killing machines in 4 years. Also worth noting parachutes were denied to pilots for most of the war so they "didn't lose their nerve and jump out"....
The Germans were the only ones who gave their pilots parachutes, from mid 1917. They got the point that someone who had been shot down and survived would learn from the experience. And they were the first to understand that it was far more expensive to replace a trained pilot than his plane.
Well you had war, and a new technology. of course its going to develop quickly. What I find more surprising is you still have jets from the 50s barely 10 years since the introduction of the jet engine still in service.
@@kenoliver8913 The British upper echelons had the (stupid) preconceived notion that, if they provided a means for the pilot to successfully abandon their aircraft, they would not press attacks with the same determination that they would knowing that they had to win or die. This resulted in quite a number of pilots who, caught in a burning plane, chose to jump to their deaths rather than burn in the cockpit.
@@seanmalloy7249 Yep, an old American Marine I seem to remember being interviewed on 1 of the WW2 history series, declared that a flame thrower was the weapon non-pareil on the fortified Pacific Islands. No matter how fanatical the opposition! I guess that that is the reason that the only VC handed to 1 of "The Few" during the battle of Britain was awarded to a Hurricane pilot who was halfway out of his stricken and burning plane when a German plane crossed in front of him. He climbed back in and shot it down before finally bailing out. No doubt a candidate for Archie McIndoe's infamous Club too.
Biggles flies a Sopwith Camel in the novels W.E. Johns during Biggles's spell in 266 Squadron during the First World War. The first collection of Biggles stories, titled The Camels are Coming, was published in 1932. The first two collection of stories (broken into three books in Australia) were all true stories or events, lightly fictionalised--some of them are identifiable in official war records, e.g., the accidental discovery of a major camouflaged airfield when rescuing a downed pilot. The Camel is the "plane" of Snoopy in the Peanuts comic strip, when he imagines himself as a World War I flying ace and the nemesis of the Red Baron.
It suddenly struck me that these things are 106 years old...to me, they look too high tech to be that old. When I first learned about these, watching WW1 documentaries and, of course, reading Peanuts comics, 106 years ago would have put you in the "Wild West", Wild Bill Hickock, not the Red Baron.
How can you not mention the most famous Camel pilot of all time, Captain James Bigglesworth of 266 Squadron. AS you allude to at the end of the clip, his long time friend "Wilks" used to fly top cover in an SE5a as they performed better at height. Sopwith aviation in Kingston on THames could turn out designs incredibly quickly, they would literally chalk designs on the floor and build then like a model aircraft, I believe they could get a flying prototype in something like 12 to 16 weeks at a push. The much vaunted Fokker DR! triplane was copied from the Sopwith Triplane (Tripehound) which for some reason was build in relatively small numbers given how effective it was at the time.
I read loads of the Biggles books when i was a kid. Yes, they've dated badly, but they were written by someone with contempory knowledge of first world war aviation.
@@andrewallen9993 One of the books of his i read had a preable along the lines of "whilst it's unlikley any one pilot might have all the scrapes in this book, I know of many who had scrapes just like in these storys"
There is only one all original sopwith camel still flying, its in New Zealand. I wish I could see it in person, but I live in the US and I'm not about to travel to New Zealand just to see the only flying sopwith camel... You can find videos of its really interesting, and terrifying at the same time.
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I have no idea, lol, but here's a video of it, the sputtering you hear is the pilot turning off a couple of the engines cylinders, there is no other way of lowering the RPMs on that engine, that's how it was designed. ruclips.net/video/Hq78ZocOAkY/видео.htmlsi=UHoVUMTftlZahQlT
Arthur Lee’s book “No Parachute” is a collection of his letters home to his wife that describes fighting in the Pup and Camel. I have read it multiple times and am always fascinated by it.
These had no throttle. Since the crankshaft was bolted to the airframe and the propellor was bolted to the engine block, it would be difficult to rig up. So instead, the pilots simply blipped the ignition on and off in order to control power output. Also, they used castor oil as lubricant, and it was a "total loss" system where the oil was continuously applied to the valve gear on top of the cylinders. And of course since there were no valve covers, the oil basically sprayed everywhere, including on the pilot. Castor oil is not very poisonous, but in small amounts it simply causes bad diarrhea.... Whoops~!
Could just imagine a pilot getting fed up with constant diarrhoea that he cuts hole in bottom of plane then purposely flys over German trenches pooping himself
the camel was also slow compared to late war fighters like the SPAD, Fokker DVII, and SE5. the later were also easier to fly well. SPAD even had superior climb rate. Boom and Zoom is the superior fighter tactic.
While true, the Camel was the fastest when it was new. Can’t hold it against it to get outclassed later. As for BnZ, also true, but that fact wasn’t realized until far later.
@@t65bx25 SE5 entered service March 1917, 138mph SPAD XIII entered front line service May 1917, 131mph Sopwith Camel entered frontline service June 1917, 113mph Fokker DVII entered service May 1918, 124mph Camel was not the first in service, and definitely the slowest of them. Albatros D.V could fly 116mph, Albatros D.III could fly 117mph, Sopwith Triplane could fly 117mph, Fokker Dr.1 was 110 mph, Sopwith Pup flew 112mph, Nieuport 28 flew 124mph, Nieuport 17 flew 110mph. "As for BnZ, also true, but that fact wasn’t realized until far later." yes, BnZ really came to the forefront particularly after the Hawker Hart was developed and introduced. But Rickenbacker and others famously flew BnZ in WW1 none the less. Some pilots had figured it out, even if it wasn't really formalized until later. And aircraft like the SE5a, SPAD XIII, Pfalz D.III and others suited to that style of dogfighting. The SPAD XIII was fast, dove well, outclimbed the Fokker DVII and Sopwith Camel, and Rickenbacker and other SPAD pilots used it that way. And the SE5a became the main British fighter at the end of WW1, and was also used by the US after the war. And in post war aerospace engineering analysis of the top WW1 fighters, the performance was compared and the SE5a, Fokker DVII and SPAD XIII were shown to be the top performers of the main fighters (DVIII was good, as were some others, but their service was so limited they had no real impact on the war, such as the Snipe and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV). There is a book you can find a copy of online, I think i found it in the NASA archive, that did the analysis and covered the evolution of aircraft design from an engineering perspective.
@@paulbantick8266 clearly you didn't read far enough into my comments to see I already mentioned the Snipe and others. "Although the performance demonstrated by the Snipe was unimpressive, tests at Martlesham Heath in October 1918 had shown that the Snipe was inferior to the Martinsyde F.3 and Fokker D.VII" the Snipe entered service about 1month before the war ended, saw a short string of successful patrols that resulted in some kills with minimal losses (about 5 patrols), and that was all. There were some gripes about it being tail heavy and lacking rudder authority.
The Spad did not have a better climb rate than the Camel. The Camel could also out climb the SE5. The Spad and SE5 were faster in level flight and in a dive than the Camel
The way Britain developed its technology and its battle strategy in WW1 was astonishing. Then they let it slide. Dannant and Lyman have a new book out, 'Victory into Defeat', that describes how we not only lost our lead but Germany learned our lessons. So we had to start all over again
I used to fly RC planes and I have always loved WW1 and WW2 airplanes . Jets are cool they look fast standing still. But something about those old planes with propellers always captivated me. I never got a WW1 or WW2 airplane but someday I'll get back to the hobby and I'll get me a Sopwith Camel!
I need to find my copy of Blue Max. I loved how the game designers included the Camel's torque-issues and other quaint maneuvering foibles into its movement chart. One of my favorite planes in that game.
You mentioned Captain L A Strange. Louis Strange was a pilot in WW1, but won the DFC in both World Wars. He helped develop the catapult system for aircraft in convoys. He is worth doing a video about.
They did a remake! The same 33 year difference between that games release and today is the difference in the sopwith camel and the bell X-5 or the Cf-100
@mattfleming86 Does the virtual plane have the same terrible handling characteristics of the original? Simulating the gyroscopic forces would be a fun bit of programming.
Sweet jesus that's a game I remember using those floppy disks the size of a slice of bread to play it still got the manual to it somewhere here in house
I read an interview once of a British pilot that had used a Sopwith Camel in WWI. He said there was a trick to the "hard right" stick of the Camel where, if you had a decent fuel load, you could pitch hard right and down. The weight of the fuel tank would swing the tail of the craft over your head and you would, for a few seconds, fly backwards. This would give you the chance to fire back at anyone on your tail and made some German pilots nervous about lining up for a 6 o'clock shot on a Camel. While he admits he only scored one hit on a German plane having tried this half a dozen times, it was still one of the more amazing things a Camel was capable of doing.
Should definitely have a look into the Blackburn Buccaneer, amazing aircraft with more than a few quirks and intriguing production. The folding nose and tail should be enough to tickle your fancy haha
Guys, it was a rotary engine, not radial. The cylinders, basically the whole engine, rotated. The camel used various engines. To see how a rotary engine works, search youtube, how the gnome rotary engine works.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I did. Then I did some further research and discovered there’s more than one kind of rotary engine. I was only familiar with the Wankel type. So I removed my comment.
4:20 Simon's description of how a rotary engine was cooled is mistaken. The propeller had no cooling function. Though rotary engines resemble radial engines, they operate differently. A rotary turns itself around a fixed axis, spinning at the same speed as the prop, which is bolted to the engine's crankcase. The spinning motion of the entire engine cools the cylinders. Rotary engines started to go out of favor before the end of WWI because they are inefficient for larger output applications. By 1918 the leading fighter types on both sides were powered with liquid-cooled inline powerplants. By the 1930s lightweight air-cooled radial engines were becoming dominant.
My grandfather flew in a modified Sopwith Camel that had a back seat, used for photo recon. I have a photo of German trenches he took, as well as a photo of him sitting in his back seat. The camera mounted in a whole cut through the fueselage. He and the pilot crashed together, the pilot lost a leg. I inherited a dagger/letter opener the pilot had made for him, made from a wing strut, throttle handle and various metal rings from the engine, coupled with some of the pilot's leg bone in the handle.
Thomas Sopwith lived until 1989 and was a consultant for Hawker until 1980. In 1920 he founded Hawker with Harry Hawker. It was named according to Hawker likely to keep old creditors out. Just imagine one man being involved in aviation from biplanes to the jet era.
I was in University in 1988 and read that Sopwith was still alive though I think he was blind. That just seemed incredible that he could still be around.
You forgot to mention it was also hard to shoot down by ground fire because it flew slightly side ways (side slipping). It therefore didn't fly in the direction its nose was pointing, making it difficult to determine the intersection point of aircraft and shell !
The thing that was weird about the rotary engine was that the entire engine rotated. The propeller was attached to the engine block. The crankshaft was stationary. This was the complete opposite of a radial engine. The rotary engine enabled excellent cooling even on the runway. The big downside was the gyroscopic effect which caused strange handling. The rotating engine caused a lot of oil leakage through centrifugal force. There was no throttle control. The engine was either running or not. You can hear this on old newsreels and movies as the engine is cutting on and off when landing.
Great Review of the Camel. A Camel was lost during a "Reenactment" Show last weekend (16/17 Sep 2023) at American Heritage Museum, Hudson, MA, USA. Lost power during a landing - pilot OK. Severely Damaged. Shame - such a beautiful machine. The Brits know how to build some Superb Military Aircraft. Showed their "Stuff" in WW 2. Thanks. 🤞
Two things in WW1 planes. (1) they all had carburetors which have a bit of a problem with being upside down for too long. (2) the oil being blown everywhere, especially in the face of the pilot, was castor oil and that had a singular effect on the pilots.
The Tampier Block Tube Carb will function in any attitude. The 160 Gnome had no carb at all. Castor oil does not make you sick breathing the fumes. You need to drink it.
@@koz1931 It was "small droplets" of unburnt oil but it didn't make them sick, it made them "get the runs". Was the 160 Gnome fuel injected? how did it mix the air/fuel otherwise. It was the float valve in the carbies that played up, when inverted the float would either not open, starving the engine, or stay open, flooding the engine. The engine would cut out if inverted for too long. The way RC model planes get around the problem is pressurising the fuel tank with exhaust gas and having the fuel pick up flexible.
I'm always amazed at the folly of the rotary aircraft engine. The idea that the best way for an engine to operate is to attach the drive mechanism (whether a wheel or a propeller) to the engine, and have the entire engine rotate around the crankshaft seems like something that should have never gotten off the drawing board. Even with the advantages it had over other contemporary engines, I think I would have looked for a replacement as fast as possible.
I'd guess it really simplified lubrication and maybe cooling. For the Camel, that huge gyroscope was also the reason it could almost spin to the right. The Camel engine was also at the limit for a flyable plane, which would have driven the switch to a radial arrangement.
Apart from cooling advantages, which allowed the cylinders to be far lighter as they were better cooled, the stresses on the parts which are normally called 'reciprocating' in a fixed crankshaft engine are very much lower, which both allowed them to be lighter in weight, as well as more reliable against metal fatigue in the alloys and steels of the time. Those normally reciprocating parts (crankshaft big ends, connecting rods and pistons) move relatively little against each other as the cylinders literally dance around them, so the stresses of direction changes are greatly reduced for the amount of energy harnessed (and power produced) at a time when there was a race for more horsepower in aero engines.
@@johncodmore Disagree about what?… They were both radial engines, not rotaries. By 1920 or so, metallurgy had improved enough for the rotary to be unnecessary.
Yeah. Two months before, the french had put into service the comparable ( faster but less manoeverable) Spad VII, not to mention the later Spad XIII. So even if it had been absent, the allies were fine. And the Camel was indeed dangerous: amongst the thousands made, as many were lost to accidents than in combat.
Yeah, I don’t understand. The image on the thumbnail was not a sopwith camel. This is the third one in a month…. After the Black Widow and the M3. What gives?
This guy is too charismatic for me to take his opinions about historical subjects seriously. If it's not a nerd with anxiety and a bad cardigan I DON'T WANT IT.
You showed pictures only of biplanes. From what I remember, the Sopwith Camel looked surprisingly like a dog house with a completely open cockpit (I'd imagine for easy pilot exit in an emergency). Also the yoke and "instrument panel" were invisible (to prevent German spies from seeing it. Maybe the goggles the pilots wore enabled them to see everything. Then the machine guns. From seeing the pilots firing them, they wrre highly maneuverable, allowing the pilots to shoot straight in front of the plane, to the sides, and even down the sides of the plane. I'm assuming (I know about assuming things), but still, I'm assuming that the goggles that the pilot wore allowed them to see the guns because not even in one picture of a pilot shooting the machine guns can you actually see the guns. You can see the recoil of them in the pilors hands, but the guns themselves, nope. I am assuming again, this was to keep German spies from taking photos of them. Most of my information came from the greatest flying Ace of World War 1 in his book, "Snoopy, my battles with the Red Baron." A fascinating book with tales of being shot down behind enemy lines and his exploits of getting back to his unit. I don't think it's in print anymore, but you may find it in your local library.
@@453421abcdefg12345a quick exit is still useful if the pilot didn't die in the initial crash impact, I mean the quicker you can get out, the less degree of burning you suffer; a bit morbid I know but somewhat true.
@@453421abcdefg12345 Just in case the cat next door was having a bad day. The WWI Ace would need to make a hasty getaway. That's what I'm thinking anyway.
I love this craft so much that I made it in a project that celebrated aviation in my sculpture class (made from cardboard it had a 5 foot wingspan). I got a hold of blueprints and went to town transferring measurements from 1/4"=1 foot scale to something required from my instructor. Was a blast to make... almost as fun as your video *smirks*
When I was a kid I knew all the dinosaurs, and I read every book on WW1 dogfights and flying aces that I could. I was fascinated ny their honor and the fragile aircraft that they flew. They were truly Knights of the Sky
I had a Camel flying model which on its first flight my stepfather crashed nose first and destroyed it completely. He was showing me how to fly it... It was a beautiful plane... Pity
My fathers best friend ‘Edward Martin’ an Australian flew Se5A’s and Camels in WW1 , he never went back to Australia after the war, he was old when we used to visit him at his Edwardian house in Birmingham in the 60’s (relatively), I can remember him recalling stories to my dad , the only thing I can remember him saying was the pilots fear of being trapped and being burnt alive in the plane, RIP Ted 🙏🏻 ironic that Thomas Sopwith lived to be 101, far longer than the young lads flying his machines
I got a shiver when I saw those pilots and their exploits. William Barker with 49 kills. The fledgling Royal Airforce needed that plane in 1917, a British development that was found around the world in a time when the world really did appear big. Those men really were knights of the sky.
Good Grief! Every Beagle's best friend, especially ones named Snoopy.
Curse you, Red Baron!
@@Esqofosd 🤣👍
Dont forget Biggles!!
I kept looking for his picture on here
ROFLMAO 😂
I am reminded of a quote from a Royal Flying Corps' Captain James Bigglesworth: "If you can fly a Sopwith Camel, you can fly anything."
...AND my father told me a story (no idea how true it really is) from the early days of WWI... The war office called in Orville Wright to discuss the logistics of putting together an Air Force, and what it takes (minimals) to get a plane to fly, to whit, Orville slapped the nearby heavy office desk, and said, "If you can find me an engine with enough power, I'll make this desk take off and fly!" ;o)
Even a dog could fly it.
If you can dodge a Wrench
You can dodge a Ball 😂
According to my grandfather who flew them as a RFC pilot starting in beginning of 1917 until the end of the war. Life expectancy for a new pilot was about 2 weeks or less but that was better than being an officer in the Border Regiment going into 1917 offensives. At least RFC offices and men slept on clean sheets.
The Camel could if desired out-turn the enemy because the torque of the engine made a snap role to the right possible. A huge advantage in a dogfight as the Germans were to find out with Camels on the six. That was because the crankshaft was bolted stationary to the frame and the mass of the engine and propeller spun on the shaft. The Camel was a tricky plane to land as all it took was a stiff crosswind or a bit of extra fuel in the carburetor and the plane could flip over when landing. My grandfather found out the hard way as he ended up with a silver plate installed in the the roof of his mouth as he ate the steering stick on a particularly hard landing . He survived the war needing a cane to walk having being wounded 13 times combat flying Camels, not counting the silver plate.
My mother says my grandfather flew one too. He joined the infantry, was wounded twice, and transferred to the RFC. He was involved in the Spanish Civil War in some way, but I don't know what. In WW2, he was one of the many people involved with the Spitfire. People were something else then, eh? There were many just like him.
I never met my grandfather but he knew I was born. He was busy dying at the time. He was in the UK and my parents were here in the US. My own father was a WW2 RAF combat fighter pilot. Who was shot down twice and had his face shot off. Fortunately he was lucky and to get advanced plastic surgery ( palace influence?) which was being pioneered at the time. Otherwise he would have looked like a monster. He had many, many adventures. @@jugbywellington1134
Unless you knew this and turned to the left when followed by a Camel. Likely most newb German pilots did not.
Well back then Ironically there was honer in war pilots were often after crashing in enemy territory were treated well by fellow enemy pilots often drinking and eating telling stories
My father flew the 1 1/2 strutter Spotter version. Yes, they only turned right. Also the throttle was either open or closed - no gradient , and the gun if fitted would jam at higher altitudes when it was cold. Occasionally he took shots at the enemy with a pistol he kept warm in his jacket.
My grandmother's job during WW1 was carving propellers for Sopwith Camels using a draw knife.
That’s fantastic.
My great-grandmother spray painted Camels and other aircraft in Lincoln, England. During WW1
It’s amazing how in 66 years man went from just learning to fly to landing on the moon.
One life can matter. No?
What amazes me more is that we did that in 66 years and have gone no further
Yes I agree, Hollywood special effects have improved a lot over that time span.
@@GoatTheGoatyikes
@GoatTheGoat unfortunately it seems that your intelligence hasn't made such strides💀 only smooth brains think the shit was faked
Can't believe he left out Snoopy! Snoopy's exploits as a fighter pilot flying Sopwith Camels during the First World War are legendary. It is believed that the term describing aerial combat-dog fight-was coined by his comrades to describe his tenacity as a soldier of the air. And the gregarious pilot's stories of the war have inspired generations around the world and even to the Moon-in 1969 the Apollo 10 astronauts gave the name Snoopy to their Lunar Module.
Snoopy began flying the Camels shortly after they were introduced to the front lines in June 1917. He often joked that he probably crashed more of them than anybody else, but he always returned for another fight, often against the greatest ace of the war, Germany's Manfred von Richthofen, known as The Red Baron. Despite decades of searching by aviation archeologists, none of the Camels flown in combat by Snoopy were believed to exist-until last year. "It was like finding the Holy Grail," stated Museum of Flight Curator, Dan Hagedorn.
Absolutely! Who can forget the tales of his sneaking through enemy territory after being shot down, in order rejoin his squadron! :)
Came here to say this, left out the Camel's greatest flying ace!
Well written, well said, and clearly authoritative. Bravo!
@@aymonfoxc1442 I stole it from: Snoopy's Sopwith Camel Airplane in Museum's Major New Exhibit
@@ellsworth1956 Fair enough mate. I'd say you 'borrowed' the information about Snoopy's heroic deeds 😉
Outstanding. I never knew the origin of "camel," but as a kid the Camel was to WW1, what the Spitfire or Mustang was to WW2.
The Spitfire of WW1 was the SE5a. Some squadrons started with one and transitioned to another.
I like how your thumbnail shows a plane that isn't a Sopwith Camel. Very professional.
Lazy AI generated art. How hard is it to find a picture of the actual plane?
@@akaJughead especially since there are a lot in the video.
That thumbnail looks more like Brit markings on Russian Antonov AN-2 Cabin Biplane from 1947. Maybe with a smaller engine in that dome cowl. Much bigger round tail &horizontal stabilator sits up off body. Plus, there's those big 30ish wheel pants! It's just missing them port-hole windows most Annies would have. Simply a Simmon rouse to get ya in, how "dark skies" he's gone.
No good me gone
ABSOLUTELY M8,100%!😳
"It's simple! The life expectancy of a new pilot is twenty minutes!" - Lord Flasheart
"Treat your kite like you treat your women; get inside them five times a day and take them to heaven and back. WOOF!"
I love every Blackadder reference ever!
"Always treat your kite like you'd treat your woman."
"How do you mean sir? Take her home on weekend to meet your mother?"
"Ah, no. Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back."
Flasheart had the best lines.
So we take off in ten minutes, we're in the air for twenty minutes, so we should be dead by twenty five to ten.
Treat your kite like you treat your bird.
What, take her home at the weekend to meet your mother?
No, get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back. Woof woof!
A shout-out to Captain W E Johns, Camel pilot, whose experiences formed the basis for his fictional character 'Biggles'.
Biggles began as a ww1 Camel pilot . Through a great many books, he went on to pilot all manner of aircraft in all sorts of heroic adventures up into the early years of the Cold War. Fond memories of his stories.
Ah, as a little kid I was a Biggles fan. But I reread them as a parent and was shocked. Even by the standards of his time Johns was a virulent racist (try Biggles' African adventures!). Even the most non-PC parent would not hand his kids these books today.
@@kenoliver8913I love biggles books but yeah the racism is too God damn high.
The biggles in Australia books are horrific
@@kenoliver8913 A product of his time, I would say. By that measure, Biggles himself was not the most liberated or PC individual in literature, but I always question the judging of older characters and creations via modern sensibilities. Very few can hold up to that kind of scrutiny.
Biggles himself had faults but was, in many regards, an admirable character.
@@kenoliver8913 yes my father got given Biggles in Africa as a school prize in 1936. I was an avid Biggles reader in the '60's; its difficult to read any of the Biggles books now and understand the racism. It was a very Empire based ideology which I think my family kept to and I have struggled with; i am fortunate to have young people around me who put me right and remind me of my own racism.
@@7thsealord888 Mostly the morality of characters is better judged by the standards of THEIR time, not ours (less so for kids, though). But Johns was a racist even by those standards - it would have been called "colour prejudice" then. To write like that in the 1930s was not harmless.
The Camel was said to offer either a “Victoria Cross, a Red Cross, or a wooden cross.” The turn to the right was described as “violent.”
From what I've heard, it was mostly just the extreme amount of torque and was fairly easy to account for, once you know when and how to expect it. Most new pilots were caught off guard and never had a chance to learn.
The torque was present in all aircraft, just the Camel was more extreme. It's partially why aircraft carriers stuck their islands where they did and why latter naval prop aircraft incorporated contra-rotating propellers.
I was lucky enough, at the age of 11, to meet Sir Tommy Sopwith. He related to this aircraft nut how his first job was to try to analyse and work out how to reduce the Camel's worst trait, the spin. He had to take it to height and then induce the dreaded spin after modifications. A charming man who left an indelible mark on me, thanks yo my father who enabled me to talk to such a great person
How was Snoopy not even mentioned once? He was the greatest and most famous Sopwith Camel pilot ever.
Snoopy is the reason why I learned about the Sopwith Camel! Yes, he's its most famous pilot!
@@TheKulu42Snoopy is the only reason I clicked on this video!
I didn't know it was Camels for him - but what about Biggles too? An entire series of books that started with the new pilot learning to fly Camels and went on for about 100 books!
Oh please he got shot down on Halloween and barely made it back beyond enemy lines to the pumpkin patch.
@@johnharris6655 but he survived being shot down behind enemy lines.... the red baron? Lol
The media offline was my favorite part!
Sopwith Camel is a very dangerous plane, especially for the person that is flying it.
About 20 years ago, an older chap near Melbourne built a full scale replica of a Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter in his home garage! It is now on display at Tyabb Air Museum on the Mornington Peninsula near Melbourne.
I am pretty sure I saw something a few years back where they are pretty sure the Red Baron was taken down by ground fire not an air to air shot. I could be wrong in that it may not be 100% proven. Even so, the Camel was a badass plane for its day.
You are absolutely right. Although Brown was hot in his tail, the bullet that killed Richthofen “penetrated from the right underarm and exited next to the left nipple”. I’ve read of 3 possible gunners on the ground who might have made the shot, but also heard that it was most likely an Australian gunner named John “Snowy” Evans who fired the fatal shot.
Yes the Baron was taken out by ground fire and he actually did not like the tri-plane, he had more air to air victories in his prior aircraft
Yet another example of revisionist history. The hubris of people who believe they’re better qualified to determine what happened 100 years after the event. The original evidence is all long gone, there’s no new evidence, but they presume themselves to be better equipped to determine what happened.
Chronology snobbery is another term for it. It’s just a way to sell your book or TV show.
The aluminum seat and small windscreen of the Barons triplane are on display in one of the private dining rooms at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto. When I saw the seat during a mess dinner, there were holes in the back of the seat. One with an upwards trajectory and one directly from behind….so I don’t think it is definitive.
@@patrickmacnamara9874 The evidence is conclusive. A post mortem exam of Richthofen's body showed the bullet that killed him penetrated from the right underarm and exited next to the left nipple. Arthur Roy Brown (credited with the kill) attacked from above and behind Richthofen's left. Even more conclusively, Richthofen could not have continued his pursuit of Wilfred May for as long as he did (up to two minutes after Brown's "attack") had his wound come from Brown.
It still blows my mind that the machine guns fired THROUGH the propellers
I was going yo comment exactly that! 😳 Had always assumed they were mounted on the wings or under the fuselage, had no idea they had to be synchronized with the propeller?? That's insane!
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 And the synchronizer was a major invention because they were just chancing it before that.
To be fair losing a propeller in a biplane generally isn't the end of the world, they have pretty good glide ratios.
@jtjames79 have ya seen the wacky "bullet deflectors" attached to the propellors before the synchroniser was invented?
@@Hirosjimma Yes, hilarious. Now there's a good chance your bullets bounced back at you.
@@Hirosjimma Yep that was the first solution before the synchronizer mechanisms were invented, essentially armored plate for the propellers. Some WWII aircraft had synchronizers also, or they just fired through the propeller hub!
It was a formidable aircraft indeed, the Pup. Even for the British..385 pilots were killed learning to fly the thing...and that was just on the British side alone (1,796 were made). This was the second highest casualty list of any British aircraft, second only to the dreadful RE8. widely regarded as more difficult to fly and gained a reputation in the Royal Flying Corps for being "unsafe" that was never entirely dispelled.
In the Sopwith Pup, just to be sure it can competer with the RAE RE8 of how dangerous it was, it killed over 400 British pilots in ground strafing attacks--not mainly in dogfights. It was rightfully feared by its initiators because of its Le Rhône 9C 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary piston engine developing 80 hp which produced a tremendous torque. This led to a very rapid right turn which also had the tendency to push the aircraft nose down. ugh! But that torque also gave the Camel ALMOST unmatched manoeuvrability Iin the hands of capable pilots.The Pup was eventually outclassed by newer German fighters, but it was not completely replaced on the Western Front until the end of 1917. The remaining Pups were relegated to Home Defence and training units.
I would love to hear more about planes from ww1. The first world war gets short shrift compared to other wars.
Most amazing, Sir Tom Sopwith who founded the Sopwith company went on the found the Hawker company, which eventually built the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which Sir Tom lived to see prevail in the Falklands War in 1982.
After T.O.M. Sopwith wound up his aircraft company (to avoid possible tax implications) he founded a new aviation company named after his Australian cheif test pilot, Harry Hawker. Sadly Hawker was killed shortly after.
Although the Camel initially used Clerget ("cler-jay") rotary engines, later versions used a W.O. Bentley engine, which was a thorough re-design of the Clerget. Bentley, a naval officer, later received payment for this work, which he used to build his first Bentley car.
Wars certainly speed on tecnology development research it even occurred during WW2, the creator of the Martin Baker fighter that never got ordered went on to create the first ejection seats for fighter jets, it occurred due to the horror of watching his best friend die when test flying his Prototype version of the Martin Baker fighter
Is anyone old enough to remember the Milton Bradley board game, "Dogfight"? It was by far my favorite game and me and the boys imagined we were fighter pilots and played it all Summer long and whenever possible. Great video, as usual. Thanks.
I used to have a copy of that. Loved the little plastic planes, and the card mechanic was a pretty good way to handle combat.
I had that game too. loved it. I also bought "Richtofens war"
Yep, I still have my game. . I had repainted the planes as a kid, so I had to watch eBay for 10 years until I found unmolested replacement planes. . . . But I still have the game and all the pieces.
My grandfather was a flight lieutenant in the RNAS and flew Sopwith pups until they switched to Camels. His squadron was flying them for the first time moving airfields within the UK and he and many others crashed. He ended up upside down in a field and a farmers wife brought him a cup of tea as he was uninjured. We still have half of the propeller from the plane that he kept as a memento.
I think I remember reading that the Sopwith Camels tendency to turn better in one direction than the other is why most aircraft carriers have their islands on the starboard side. Although quite how many Sopwith Camels land on the USS Gerald Ford or HMS Queen Elizabeth each day escapes me.
Russia is raiding its museums for tanks. The RN may do the same thing after the 30 F35's are shot down. That is 30 split between the fleet and the RAF! Duxford .ay become a resource, not a display park!
@@keithdurose7057 fairy tales
I had the opportunity to fly a replica Pup many years ago and it was an absolute fun aircraft to fly. Ferried it almost 1K miles to it's new owner and heard he ground looped it within a month. Crying shame...
'Its new owner' NOT 'It's' which is short for 'it is'
You're right, That's what you get writing a comment after a couple of beers, thanks.@@walkerhjk
Don't suppose he survived, did he?
Did it have a rotary engine?
One of the reasons for the altitude performance of the SE5 was to counter the high altitude Zeppelin bombing raids on London. They had been safe from any previous defence system
The F15 first flew in 1972 and is still in frontline service 51 years later now in 2023. If the Sopwith Camel which first flew in 1916 had had a similarily long service life as the F15 as a frontline fighter it would have still been flying attack missions in Vietnam in 1967!!!
Which just goes to show that, for as many horrific things it caused, the cold war, especially at it's peak, spurred on unprecedented scientific developments, just like WW1 and 2 previously did.
@@simonm1447 But the fact that it's actual design still holds up is incredibly impressive.
Biplanes were common at the start of WW2
@@simonm1447they were based on Schneider cup racer planes
Barrage balloons flew in WW1 they are still used occasionally now in conflict zones my comment is just as relevant as yours to the Sopwith camel
Ie it's not
There was a woman named Betsy Roth who would fly one of these at low altitude across the beaches of NH and MA back in the 1980s, what a sight.
I built one of those as a kid in the 60’s. I luckily had a dad who loved history and airplanes. He showed me how to build the plastic ones and eventually balsa planes. He flew me around in a bunch of small planes as a child. Years later I got my license without him knowing and he became my first passenger.
While WW1 was horrific, the air was romanticized. I adore these planes so much.
Fokker Dr I and Sopwith Triplane are my two favorites for, obvious reasons.
The Fokker Dr I Triplane also had the same "free right turn" characteristic. The reason for the severe gyroscopic effect was due to their Rotary engines. Unlike WWII Radial engines that had the propeller connected to the drive shaft of the motor. The WWI Rotary engines bolted the drive shaft to the body of the airplane and the propeller was bolted to the cylinders/body of the engine. This caused the entire engine to spin, generating the gyroscopic forces on the plane. Also because of this arrangement, there was no real throttle on a Rotary. It was either on at full throttle, or it was off. This made slowing down to land more than a little difficult. When a modern reproduction WWI Rotary fighter comes into land, you can hear the pilot cutting the engine on and off to control his approach speed.
Note: there is a group in New Zealand building "new" WWI planes from the original plans and flying them. Braver men than most.
Nah! Look at Albatros Dr. I. Unfortunately there were only two prototyps before Germay dropped triplanes, but Albatros knew, how to build the most beautiful planes of its time.
@@ReisskIaue Albatros aircraft looked so streamlined because they had plywood skinned fuselages instead of the fabric covered frames more commonly used at the time.
@@ReisskIaue The British also had the Sopwith Tripe, a Triplane.
Baron Von Richtoven said the Fokker Dr. I Triplane "climbed like a monkey" when he test flew it. However, the Dr. I had a design flaw and its wings had a bad habit of falling off.
Half of all pilots died or were seriously injured in training. Then a high percentage were killed in the first weeks once deployed to combat. If you were a pilot in WWI and lived any length of time you were the exception.
The Camel was highly unstable which is good when you need to dodge bullets flying at you but bad when the plane can't pull out of the inevitable death dive it puts you into. the reason the Camel had high kill ratios is that only the best pilots were put into them and that's what it took to pull out of those death dives that killed numerous inexperienced pilots.
"Death dives". Seriously?
@@PDZ1122 whats your fucking problem
Not "unstable" as they flew just fine... FIDDLY... which is arguably worse when you consider putting completely NOVICE pilots into them. The unpredictability is what gave fresh pilots a life expectancy of 2 weeks, not instability.
Once you got used to the damn thing, you knew it took more than a 40-acre field to make a left turn, but she'd whip back on her own vortex to the right, which presented it's own new set of challenges... Not to mention, nobody (at the time) could quite understand when two dog-fighters flew at each other and by-passed, somehow they ALWAYS came out of it upside down... It would be almost a decade before they figured out what wing-vortices were or how they happened and to expect it... Until that, pilots just warned the noob's that they'd come out of a "head-on" upside down, so they could prepare for it.
Maybe next time, pay attention... it really DOES help. Of course, it also helps to know something about aircraft and/or piloting... long as we're here. ;o)
Do you mean "tailspin"?
Really ? Exactly how many Sopwith Camels have you flown ? A friend of mine owns a full scale replica with an actual rotary engine, built from original drawings…. He seems to do just fine and has many hours in it. Does it have some real torque effect ? Sure, but it is farrrrrr from an unstable death trap.
My uncle owned a restored Camel. He flew it in airshows until the early '00s.
The Red Baron was brought down by groundfire from an Australian machine gunner. A single bullet hit Richthofen in the right chest causing his death shortly after a controlled landing.
The source of the fire that downed Richtofen is still hotly debated.
In a show of the Chivalry that still existed in warfare back then, he was buried by his enemies with full military honors.
@@johnharris6655 And German planes were allowed to fly over and drop wreaths, if I recall accurately.
@@RobMacKendrick I think that was true.
The wound came in two his lower abdomen and traveled up. At now time was Brown under the Baron.
Arthur Gould Lee's two bocks, "No Parachute" and "Open Cockpit" are a fantastic look into what it was like flying the Sopwith pup in the months after bloody april, and eventually what it was like to fly the Camel in later 1917, and how terrifying those ground strafing missions really were.
"No Parachute" was a favorite. A combination of letters home, and his personal diary entries. A flippant remark as to why he carried a pistol on missions (in a letter)is met with stark reality in his diary, where it's clear the reason to be armed is that if he's trapped in a burning plane, he can jump, or blow his brains out.
Yes, I remember very well that the authorities refused to supply parachutes to the pilots believing that they would jump and will lack "fighting spirits" against the hun. How many lost their lives because of this foolish decision...
A superb novel on flying
Camels is Winged Victory by
V.M. Yeates.
They are excellent books. Perhaps they will induce in us respect and discipline, so that we stick to a truthful record of our won lives, rather than 'shooting a line' such that nobody knows what to believe.
@@paoloviti6156 Considering the anecdotal evidence of Germans in WW2 bailing out early when damaged, there's a little something to that. But pilots are worth more than planes in a war, they should bail out!
12:10 While Roy Brown was initially credited with shooting down the Red Baron, most historians now agree that he was killed by an Anti-Air Machine Gunner on the ground.
The Camel killed 385 pilots in accidents (412 were killed in action) there were so many accidents that a two seater version was developed in an attempt to decrease the number killed while learning to fly the thing.
My Grandad worked with the fellow who developed the two seater version and described him as 'a nasty piece of work', damning comment from somebody as calm and gentle as Grandad.
My family home is in Kingston on Thames and the sop with factory is just a couple of minutes walk from Kingston train station. Before WWI Tommy Sopwith used to tow his float down to the Thames (by horse) to test them and take off rom there. Sopwith was bought out by Hawker between the wars and the site was used for Hurricane production. The parts were trucked down to Weybridge for final assembly and delivery to the squadrons. After WWII the site was sold to Kingston Polytechnic and was part of their faculty of arts for many years. The newly minted Kingston Universty sold the site to a property developer in the nineties to build dreary over priced flats. Hawker stayed in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames building a large factory a mile up the road in Ham. This site saw the development of both th Hunter and Harrier jets. It ironically fell to the vevelopers around 25 years ago. Heavy sigh!
Just look at what happened to Hatfield (De Havilland) or Woodford (A.V.Roe/Avro). Even Croydon and Brooklands are all just housing, now - and Filton (Bristol Aircraft) is going the same way.
Great video. I grew up reading Biggles books. RAAF museum in Point Cook, Melbourne used to run an aerial display with an original Sopwith Pup.
With rotary engines, the crankshaft was generally fixed to the airframe and the airscrew attached to the crankcase. The engine rotated around the fixed crankshaft. Lubrication was a total-loss method using castor oil, the fumes of which had an unfortunate laxative effect on the pilots. The oil entered via the crankshaft and centrifugal force meant the oil couldn't be recirculated. Therefore the oil was mixed with the fuel as in two-stroke engines.
What isn't mentioned is the Bristol FB2 and SE 5a were also excellent contemporary British fighters. It's believed now that the "Red Baron" was shot down by ground fire.
von Richthofen was shot down by Australian Infantry fire.
The contribution of French aircraft also can't be underrated, the SPAD 7/13 and Neiuport 11/17 were significant allied fighters.
The entire engine rotating on a fixed crankshaft is the very definition of a rotary engine. (As opposed to a radial engine.)
Much like this motorcycle.ruclips.net/video/ZghXM9xqCPA/видео.htmlsi=DIaFY5mT73odOYux
@@jimblake3574 Unless you are in the US, where the term "rotary engine" is the common term for the Wankel Engine, as used in old Mazdas...
As a small boy a decade and a half after the end of WWII and a father who was in the RAF I was fascinated by the Sopwith Camel and the Spitfire. Many thanks for this.
Roy Brown is officially credited with Von Richthofenm but although he played a vital part in chasing the Red Baron, it's almost certain that he was actually killed by an Australian ground machine gunner, The bullet went through his body from side-to-side, and was still inside his flight suit. That implies it had very little energy left, i.e, it was fired at long range. Neither fact is compatible with a shot from a closely pursuing aircraft,
Not to mention Brown attacked from above ,behind and from the Barons Left.The bullet came from the below and from the Barons right. AND the Baron flew on for over 2 miles after Browns attack
Brown apparently did not like being named the man who shot down the Red Baron. He found it burdensome and was constantly getting letters from various people asking him how he did it. I think he found the questions distasteful.
could of been the result of a ricochet, once a bullet hits something relatively solid it can change direction and expend a lot of it's energy. how the pilot was sitting as the bullet struck say the frame of his seat could be enough to have caused the wound that killed him. how likely this happened is a moot point but tragic instances of fate have and continue to take place.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. An American pilot, Colin "Boots" Lebouttilier witnessed Brown's burst, fired from behind and to the right, strike the Baron's cockpit. The plane then jerked and went down. Brown reported that he put a burst into the plane but then he lost sight of it. When doctors examined the Baron's body, they found that the bullet entered behind the right armpits and exited below the left nipple. They determined that the bullet came from behind and to the right and on a slightly downward angle. Their report with the drawings is available online. The Royal Air Force, credited Brown with the kill and have never changed that. Those are the facts.
Most kills were credited with less evidence than that. A second pilot witnessed Brown's bullets hit the Baron's cockpit. The angle of the bullet is consistent with where Leboutillier and Brown said he fired from. There has been a dishonest campaign to lie about what happened that seems to have happened about twenty years ago. It airbrushes Leboutlillier out of the story despite the fact that he was in the air battle and witnessed Brown shoot the Baron down. He witnessed the plane jerk and start going down right after he saw Brown's bullets strike the cockpit. Anyone can google Collin "Boots" Leboutlillier and read his eyewitness account. Anyone can go to the online Roy Brown museum and look at the report of the doctors who examined the Baron's body. The effort to smear Brown is disgusting. It is an attack on his honor and that of Lebouttillier.
@@ToddSauve A lot of soldiers don;t like to talk about the people they killed in a war. That is probably true about famous killings as well.
I just wanted to know how the heck a beagle was flying that sucker.
That's just due to the nice and compact cockpit... everything was within reach... 😂😂😂
The aerodynamic advantages of beagles are rarely mentioned due to their extreme modesty in such matters.
Are all the thumbnails just vaguely related to the subject now?
Ya, that thumbnail is bunk
At least it *was* an airplane.
The Camel wasn't the first aircraft to use a rotary engine - the Pup did too ... as did German and French aircraft early in WW1, in fact the first practical rotary aircraft engine came out in 1913 and the first design even pre-dates the Wright brothers' first flight.
Also, the engine wasn't cooled by the propeller acting as a fan to push air over it - the engine rotated with the propeller so was spinning through the airstream. That's how it was cooled.
If the first practical rotary engine didn't appear ’til 1913, how come the Seguin brothers were mass producing Gnome-Rhone engines for pioneer aviators by 1909, and the engines were used to power a number of record breaking flights before 1913.
By 1913, there were several other manufacturers of proprietary rotary aero engines.
I think the maim point lost in this engineering video is the reason it could turn 1 way good was because the whole engine rotated with the prop, and the reason it did that was for better cooling, and the reason it needed better cooling is because aircraft flew slower with low compressions, And the reason for that was crap fuel
@@Sports-Jorge Cooling may well have been part of it but I think more important was that the whole assembly acted as a flywheel that kept spinning so that the engine didn't stall when it misfired.
@@Nastyswimmer 👍 oh yea, that was the other benefit. Another earlier design “fixed” cooling issues by drilling holes around the bottom of the cylinders 😅
@@Nastyswimmer These rotaries were controlled by cutting the ignition, so the HAD to be able to carry on when misfiring! The 9 cylinder Rhone could have 3, 6, or all 9 cut at once.
I grew up in the 70s, so Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel fighting the Red Barron got me interested in this aircraft. I've studied WW1 aircraft ever since. Thanks for the great video .
Don't forget the Sopwith Snipe; the upgraded successor to the camel, more power, and still more torque. Left leg much stronger as a requirement.
The snipe wasn’t as hard to fly though. Much more stable
Better climb but allegedly poorer maneuverability.
Biggles turned down the opportunity to fly snipes....
The rate of development of aircraft during the first world war is mind boggling. From machines not far removed from the Bleriot that first crossed the channel in 1909 to professional mechanised killing machines in 4 years. Also worth noting parachutes were denied to pilots for most of the war so they "didn't lose their nerve and jump out"....
The Germans were the only ones who gave their pilots parachutes, from mid 1917. They got the point that someone who had been shot down and survived would learn from the experience. And they were the first to understand that it was far more expensive to replace a trained pilot than his plane.
Well you had war, and a new technology. of course its going to develop quickly.
What I find more surprising is you still have jets from the 50s barely 10 years since the introduction of the jet engine still in service.
@@kenoliver8913 The British upper echelons had the (stupid) preconceived notion that, if they provided a means for the pilot to successfully abandon their aircraft, they would not press attacks with the same determination that they would knowing that they had to win or die. This resulted in quite a number of pilots who, caught in a burning plane, chose to jump to their deaths rather than burn in the cockpit.
@@seanmalloy7249 Yep, an old American Marine I seem to remember being interviewed on 1 of the WW2 history series, declared that a flame thrower was the weapon non-pareil on the fortified Pacific Islands. No matter how fanatical the opposition!
I guess that that is the reason that the only VC handed to 1 of "The Few" during the battle of Britain was awarded to a Hurricane pilot who was halfway out of his stricken and burning plane when a German plane crossed in front of him. He climbed back in and shot it down before finally bailing out. No doubt a candidate for Archie McIndoe's infamous Club too.
Well done for explaining what an impact the Camel had!
My great uncle was an RFC 'turner' posted to the Western Front.
I’ve always loved the camel… great to learn more about this aircraft
Biggles flies a Sopwith Camel in the novels W.E. Johns during Biggles's spell in 266 Squadron during the First World War. The first collection of Biggles stories, titled The Camels are Coming, was published in 1932. The first two collection of stories (broken into three books in Australia) were all true stories or events, lightly fictionalised--some of them are identifiable in official war records, e.g., the accidental discovery of a major camouflaged airfield when rescuing a downed pilot.
The Camel is the "plane" of Snoopy in the Peanuts comic strip, when he imagines himself as a World War I flying ace and the nemesis of the Red Baron.
It suddenly struck me that these things are 106 years old...to me, they look too high tech to be that old. When I first learned about these, watching WW1 documentaries and, of course, reading Peanuts comics, 106 years ago would have put you in the "Wild West", Wild Bill Hickock, not the Red Baron.
4:19 is my favorite Sopwith Camel engine image ever.
I am surprised Lt James Bigglesworth didn't get a mention. Biggles got most of his victories in a Camel.
All of them , I think. He turned down a transfer to a squadron equipped with all-new Snipes.
How can you not mention the most famous Camel pilot of all time, Captain James Bigglesworth of 266 Squadron. AS you allude to at the end of the clip, his long time friend "Wilks" used to fly top cover in an SE5a as they performed better at height. Sopwith aviation in Kingston on THames could turn out designs incredibly quickly, they would literally chalk designs on the floor and build then like a model aircraft, I believe they could get a flying prototype in something like 12 to 16 weeks at a push. The much vaunted Fokker DR! triplane was copied from the Sopwith Triplane (Tripehound) which for some reason was build in relatively small numbers given how effective it was at the time.
I read loads of the Biggles books when i was a kid. Yes, they've dated badly, but they were written by someone with contempory knowledge of first world war aviation.
@@tobiasz6613 W.E Johns the author was an actual ww1 pilot.
@@andrewallen9993 One of the books of his i read had a preable along the lines of "whilst it's unlikley any one pilot might have all the scrapes in this book, I know of many who had scrapes just like in these storys"
@@tobiasz6613 🙂
"Most famous" Camel pilot?
Never heard of your guy, i think a certain beagle would like a word though, lol
There is only one all original sopwith camel still flying, its in New Zealand. I wish I could see it in person, but I live in the US and I'm not about to travel to New Zealand just to see the only flying sopwith camel... You can find videos of its really interesting, and terrifying at the same time.
Hey, I didn't know that! Hoping & presuming the pilot flies with a parachute for best survivability in event of any difficulties...? 🙈
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I have no idea, lol, but here's a video of it, the sputtering you hear is the pilot turning off a couple of the engines cylinders, there is no other way of lowering the RPMs on that engine, that's how it was designed. ruclips.net/video/Hq78ZocOAkY/видео.htmlsi=UHoVUMTftlZahQlT
There are snipes around, they look very similar
Hopefully it has more luck than the last original Nieuport which crashed at landing just days ago
@simonm1447 I don't think they fly it very often, and when they do it's only for a short time.
Sopwith and Hawker are my favourite aircraft manufacturers.
Arthur Lee’s book “No Parachute” is a collection of his letters home to his wife that describes fighting in the Pup and Camel. I have read it multiple times and am always fascinated by it.
These had no throttle. Since the crankshaft was bolted to the airframe and the propellor was bolted to the engine block, it would be difficult to rig up. So instead, the pilots simply blipped the ignition on and off in order to control power output.
Also, they used castor oil as lubricant, and it was a "total loss" system where the oil was continuously applied to the valve gear on top of the cylinders. And of course since there were no valve covers, the oil basically sprayed everywhere, including on the pilot. Castor oil is not very poisonous, but in small amounts it simply causes bad diarrhea....
Whoops~!
Could just imagine a pilot getting fed up with constant diarrhoea that he cuts hole in bottom of plane then purposely flys over German trenches pooping himself
@@davidhobson7652 Heheh! 💩💩💩
@@davidhobson7652 A brilliant idea, except that it gets very cold when you're travelling at 100 mph at 10,000 feet...
They had a throttle and breathing castor oil does nothing.
@@koz1931 No they did not and go and try some and get back with us tomorrow.
💩
the camel was also slow compared to late war fighters like the SPAD, Fokker DVII, and SE5. the later were also easier to fly well. SPAD even had superior climb rate. Boom and Zoom is the superior fighter tactic.
While true, the Camel was the fastest when it was new. Can’t hold it against it to get outclassed later.
As for BnZ, also true, but that fact wasn’t realized until far later.
@@t65bx25 SE5 entered service March 1917, 138mph
SPAD XIII entered front line service May 1917, 131mph
Sopwith Camel entered frontline service June 1917, 113mph
Fokker DVII entered service May 1918, 124mph
Camel was not the first in service, and definitely the slowest of them. Albatros D.V could fly 116mph, Albatros D.III could fly 117mph, Sopwith Triplane could fly 117mph, Fokker Dr.1 was 110 mph, Sopwith Pup flew 112mph, Nieuport 28 flew 124mph, Nieuport 17 flew 110mph.
"As for BnZ, also true, but that fact wasn’t realized until far later."
yes, BnZ really came to the forefront particularly after the Hawker Hart was developed and introduced. But Rickenbacker and others famously flew BnZ in WW1 none the less. Some pilots had figured it out, even if it wasn't really formalized until later. And aircraft like the SE5a, SPAD XIII, Pfalz D.III and others suited to that style of dogfighting.
The SPAD XIII was fast, dove well, outclimbed the Fokker DVII and Sopwith Camel, and Rickenbacker and other SPAD pilots used it that way.
And the SE5a became the main British fighter at the end of WW1, and was also used by the US after the war. And in post war aerospace engineering analysis of the top WW1 fighters, the performance was compared and the SE5a, Fokker DVII and SPAD XIII were shown to be the top performers of the main fighters (DVIII was good, as were some others, but their service was so limited they had no real impact on the war, such as the Snipe and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV). There is a book you can find a copy of online, I think i found it in the NASA archive, that did the analysis and covered the evolution of aircraft design from an engineering perspective.
Then I give you the Snipe. Which showed the vaunted Fokker D.VII a thing or two.
@@paulbantick8266 clearly you didn't read far enough into my comments to see I already mentioned the Snipe and others.
"Although the performance demonstrated by the Snipe was unimpressive, tests at Martlesham Heath in October 1918 had shown that the Snipe was inferior to the Martinsyde F.3 and Fokker D.VII"
the Snipe entered service about 1month before the war ended, saw a short string of successful patrols that resulted in some kills with minimal losses (about 5 patrols), and that was all. There were some gripes about it being tail heavy and lacking rudder authority.
The Spad did not have a better climb rate than the Camel. The Camel could also out climb the SE5. The Spad and SE5 were faster in level flight and in a dive than the Camel
The way Britain developed its technology and its battle strategy in WW1 was astonishing. Then they let it slide. Dannant and Lyman have a new book out, 'Victory into Defeat', that describes how we not only lost our lead but Germany learned our lessons. So we had to start all over again
I used to fly RC planes and I have always loved WW1 and WW2 airplanes . Jets are cool they look fast standing still. But something about those old planes with propellers always captivated me. I never got a WW1 or WW2 airplane but someday I'll get back to the hobby and I'll get me a Sopwith Camel!
4:12 Nope, they were rotary engines as the crankshaft is bolted to the firewall, and the engine block spun for cooling.
Yep, hence the highly gyroscopic nature of the front end!
What are you disagreeing about? He already stated it's a rotary.
Snoopy would definitely approve of this message.
I need to find my copy of Blue Max. I loved how the game designers included the Camel's torque-issues and other quaint maneuvering foibles into its movement chart. One of my favorite planes in that game.
Avalon Hill's _Richthofen's War_ also has a mechanic for these types of engines.
You mentioned Captain L A Strange. Louis Strange was a pilot in WW1, but won the DFC in both World Wars. He helped develop the catapult system for aircraft in convoys. He is worth doing a video about.
04:20 someone didn't review the compiled project before posting it.
Nah, they just took a smoke break for 4:20. 😂
I used to play an old DOS WWI flight sim called "Red Baron" and the Sopwith Camel was one of my favorite planes to use.
They did a remake!
The same 33 year difference between that games release and today is the difference in the sopwith camel and the bell X-5 or the Cf-100
@mattfleming86 Does the virtual plane have the same terrible handling characteristics of the original? Simulating the gyroscopic forces would be a fun bit of programming.
@@jpdemer5 I haven't played the new one, only know of it's existence.
Sweet jesus that's a game I remember using those floppy disks the size of a slice of bread to play it still got the manual to it somewhere here in house
I read an interview once of a British pilot that had used a Sopwith Camel in WWI. He said there was a trick to the "hard right" stick of the Camel where, if you had a decent fuel load, you could pitch hard right and down. The weight of the fuel tank would swing the tail of the craft over your head and you would, for a few seconds, fly backwards. This would give you the chance to fire back at anyone on your tail and made some German pilots nervous about lining up for a 6 o'clock shot on a Camel.
While he admits he only scored one hit on a German plane having tried this half a dozen times, it was still one of the more amazing things a Camel was capable of doing.
Very cool! More of these, Simon- I want all the WW1 planes to be covered!
I have flown radio control model Sopwith Pups, they are amazing flyers, so much lift and maneuverability. Great video thank you.
Even Snoopy flew a Sopwith Camel.
Well done, Simon. Thank you for such great detail in such a short space. Very educational. Thanks!
Should definitely have a look into the Blackburn Buccaneer, amazing aircraft with more than a few quirks and intriguing production. The folding nose and tail should be enough to tickle your fancy haha
"Curse you Red Baron!" How could you omit reference to the greatest WWI flying ace Snoopy??? ;)
Guys, it was a rotary engine, not radial. The cylinders, basically the whole engine, rotated. The camel used various engines. To see how a rotary engine works, search youtube, how the gnome rotary engine works.
The rotary solved a few problems of the time, with a resulting problem of "Over Torqueing" the fuse... Co-efficients are always present..lol
It is in fact a rotary radial. The cylinders are still positioned radially. Nowadays, everyone thinks of the wankel rotary when you say rotary engine.
Nobody said it wasn't a rotary.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I did. Then I did some further research and discovered there’s more than one kind of rotary engine. I was only familiar with the Wankel type. So I removed my comment.
@@morstyrannis1951Tbh, I’d give more credit to someone that discovered their error, and corrected it, than someone that was correct from the outset.
4:20 Simon's description of how a rotary engine was cooled is mistaken. The propeller had no cooling function. Though rotary engines resemble radial engines, they operate differently. A rotary turns itself around a fixed axis, spinning at the same speed as the prop, which is bolted to the engine's crankcase. The spinning motion of the entire engine cools the cylinders. Rotary engines started to go out of favor before the end of WWI because they are inefficient for larger output applications. By 1918 the leading fighter types on both sides were powered with liquid-cooled inline powerplants. By the 1930s lightweight air-cooled radial engines were becoming dominant.
My grandfather flew in a modified Sopwith Camel that had a back seat, used for photo recon. I have a photo of German trenches he took, as well as a photo of him sitting in his back seat. The camera mounted in a whole cut through the fueselage. He and the pilot crashed together, the pilot lost a leg. I inherited a dagger/letter opener the pilot had made for him, made from a wing strut, throttle handle and various metal rings from the engine, coupled with some of the pilot's leg bone in the handle.
Snoopy flew a Sopwith Camel during his dogfight with the Red Baron.
4:20 LOL
I found it difficult to believe that Billy Bishop was not included with the Canadian flying aces. His "kills" far exceeded Roy Browns.
Thomas Sopwith lived until 1989 and was a consultant for Hawker until 1980. In 1920 he founded Hawker with Harry Hawker. It was named according to Hawker likely to keep old creditors out. Just imagine one man being involved in aviation from biplanes to the jet era.
I was in University in 1988 and read that Sopwith was still alive though I think he was blind. That just seemed incredible that he could still be around.
0:22 - 1,300 + kills total? Blimey! 😮
Most impressive and undoubtedly a legend!
Not including its own pilots.
@jeremypnet
A tricky little beast to tame. But for those pilots who managed to, the rewards were unprecedented!
You forgot to mention it was also hard to shoot down by ground fire because it flew slightly side ways (side slipping). It therefore didn't fly in the direction its nose was pointing, making it difficult to determine the intersection point of aircraft and shell !
The thing that was weird about the rotary engine was that the entire engine rotated. The propeller was attached to the engine block. The crankshaft was stationary. This was the complete opposite of a radial engine. The rotary engine enabled excellent cooling even on the runway. The big downside was the gyroscopic effect which caused strange handling. The rotating engine caused a lot of oil leakage through centrifugal force. There was no throttle control. The engine was either running or not. You can hear this on old newsreels and movies as the engine is cutting on and off when landing.
it has 4 position switch that runs 0-3-6-9 cylinders by cutting ignition
Great Review of the Camel. A Camel was lost during a "Reenactment" Show last weekend (16/17 Sep 2023) at American Heritage Museum, Hudson, MA, USA. Lost power during a landing - pilot OK. Severely Damaged. Shame - such a beautiful machine. The Brits know how to build some Superb Military Aircraft. Showed their "Stuff" in WW 2. Thanks. 🤞
Two things in WW1 planes.
(1) they all had carburetors which have a bit of a problem with being upside down for too long.
(2) the oil being blown everywhere, especially in the face of the pilot, was castor oil and that had a singular effect on the pilots.
The Tampier Block Tube Carb will function in any attitude. The 160 Gnome had no carb at all. Castor oil does not make you sick breathing the fumes. You need to drink it.
@@koz1931 It was "small droplets" of unburnt oil but it didn't make them sick, it made them "get the runs". Was the 160 Gnome fuel injected? how did it mix the air/fuel otherwise. It was the float valve in the carbies that played up, when inverted the float would either not open, starving the engine, or stay open, flooding the engine. The engine would cut out if inverted for too long. The way RC model planes get around the problem is pressurising the fuel tank with exhaust gas and having the fuel pick up flexible.
I'm always amazed at the folly of the rotary aircraft engine. The idea that the best way for an engine to operate is to attach the drive mechanism (whether a wheel or a propeller) to the engine, and have the entire engine rotate around the crankshaft seems like something that should have never gotten off the drawing board. Even with the advantages it had over other contemporary engines, I think I would have looked for a replacement as fast as possible.
I'd guess it really simplified lubrication and maybe cooling. For the Camel, that huge gyroscope was also the reason it could almost spin to the right. The Camel engine was also at the limit for a flyable plane, which would have driven the switch to a radial arrangement.
Apart from cooling advantages, which allowed the cylinders to be far lighter as they were better cooled, the stresses on the parts which are normally called 'reciprocating' in a fixed crankshaft engine are very much lower, which both allowed them to be lighter in weight, as well as more reliable against metal fatigue in the alloys and steels of the time. Those normally reciprocating parts (crankshaft big ends, connecting rods and pistons) move relatively little against each other as the cylinders literally dance around them, so the stresses of direction changes are greatly reduced for the amount of energy harnessed (and power produced) at a time when there was a race for more horsepower in aero engines.
Weight!
I think the Focker Wulf 190 and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt would disagree, the last of the great piston driven fighter aircraft.
@@johncodmore Disagree about what?… They were both radial engines, not rotaries. By 1920 or so, metallurgy had improved enough for the rotary to be unnecessary.
Yeah. Two months before, the french had put into service the comparable ( faster but less manoeverable) Spad VII, not to mention the later Spad XIII.
So even if it had been absent, the allies were fine.
And the Camel was indeed dangerous: amongst the thousands made, as many were lost to accidents than in combat.
Great vid thanks for the upload.
"Spads wobble, Camels wobble, SE5's do not (burp) wobble" - Major Wooley, Goshawk Squadron..
Yes, an S.E.5a video is needed. It didn't look like much but oh my did I rack up some wins in that in the old PC WWI combat air simulator Red Baron!
Yeah, I don’t understand. The image on the thumbnail was not a sopwith camel. This is the third one in a month…. After the Black Widow and the M3. What gives?
It gets people like you to click and comment, boosting their engagement. I guess?
They’re AI generated
Comment farming.
I didn't even pay attention to the thumbnail just the title.
This guy is too charismatic for me to take his opinions about historical subjects seriously. If it's not a nerd with anxiety and a bad cardigan I DON'T WANT IT.
Billy bishop used the camel exactly what it was designed for extremely well
4:20 thats a great photo of a Camel wow incredible. How does Simon find these incredible shots?
😂
You showed pictures only of biplanes. From what I remember, the Sopwith Camel looked surprisingly like a dog house with a completely open cockpit (I'd imagine for easy pilot exit in an emergency). Also the yoke and "instrument panel" were invisible (to prevent German spies from seeing it. Maybe the goggles the pilots wore enabled them to see everything. Then the machine guns. From seeing the pilots firing them, they wrre highly maneuverable, allowing the pilots to shoot straight in front of the plane, to the sides, and even down the sides of the plane. I'm assuming (I know about assuming things), but still, I'm assuming that the goggles that the pilot wore allowed them to see the guns because not even in one picture of a pilot shooting the machine guns can you actually see the guns. You can see the recoil of them in the pilors hands, but the guns themselves, nope. I am assuming again, this was to keep German spies from taking photos of them.
Most of my information came from the greatest flying Ace of World War 1 in his book, "Snoopy, my battles with the Red Baron."
A fascinating book with tales of being shot down behind enemy lines and his exploits of getting back to his unit. I don't think it's in print anymore, but you may find it in your local library.
Does anyone else hear Christmas bells ringing through the land?
@@godlugner5327Absolutely
A Quick exit? I wonder where this would occur? Pilots had no parachutes in 1914!
@@453421abcdefg12345a quick exit is still useful if the pilot didn't die in the initial crash impact, I mean the quicker you can get out, the less degree of burning you suffer; a bit morbid I know but somewhat true.
@@453421abcdefg12345 Just in case the cat next door was having a bad day. The WWI Ace would need to make a hasty getaway.
That's what I'm thinking anyway.
I love this craft so much that I made it in a project that celebrated aviation in my sculpture class (made from cardboard it had a 5 foot wingspan). I got a hold of blueprints and went to town transferring measurements from 1/4"=1 foot scale to something required from my instructor. Was a blast to make... almost as fun as your video *smirks*
When I was a kid I knew all the dinosaurs, and I read every book on WW1 dogfights and flying aces that I could. I was fascinated ny their honor and the fragile aircraft that they flew. They were truly Knights of the Sky
I had a Camel flying model which on its first flight my stepfather crashed nose first and destroyed it completely.
He was showing me how to fly it... It was a beautiful plane...
Pity
The title graphic isn't a Sopwith Camel
looks like ai generated slop actually
My fathers best friend ‘Edward Martin’ an Australian flew Se5A’s and Camels in WW1 , he never went back to Australia after the war, he was old when we used to visit him at his Edwardian house in Birmingham in the 60’s (relatively), I can remember him recalling stories to my dad , the only thing I can remember him saying was the pilots fear of being trapped and being burnt alive in the plane, RIP Ted 🙏🏻 ironic that Thomas Sopwith lived to be 101, far longer than the young lads flying his machines
I got a shiver when I saw those pilots and their exploits. William Barker with 49 kills. The fledgling Royal Airforce needed that plane in 1917, a British development that was found around the world in a time when the world really did appear big. Those men really were knights of the sky.