Handling the Camel: The Controversey Continues

Handling the Camel? Sounds like a Middle Eastern euphemism for self-abuse. But nevermind…

In June of 1999 I interviewed Gene DeMarco at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. DeMarco flies Old Rhinebeck's Sopwith Camel. This replica isn't an exact match for a real Camel -- its tailplane is thicker and it's powered by a 160-hp Gnome Monosoupape -- but it still displays a lot of the characteristics ascribed to the Camel.

I specifically asked him about whether he had to apply right rudder while on the ground, and his reply was, "Why would you have to?" DeMarco says that the Camel's tailskid is sufficient to keep the machine pointed in the right direction while moving on the ground. He lifts off very quickly after letting the tail come up, but was unable to tell me anything specific about the way he handles the Camel on the ground. He's been flying the Camel for a long time, and says he's no longer really aware of what he does in the cockpit, at least insofar as regular handling goes.

The same seems to apply when he's airborne. The gyroscopic effect that everyone writes about is certainly apparent, but DeMarco doesn't think it's as bad as the legend would indicate. Again, though, it should be remembered that DeMarco has a lot of Camel experience.

DeMarco agrees that the air-fuel mixture has to be adjusted once you're airborne. Most rotary engines are run rich while on the ground, to ensure that they don't choke and stall. Once you're airborne, though, the air is thinner and there's less air resistance, says DeMarco, so the amount of air in the mixture has to be increased to keep the engine from flooding. For all that, DeMarco says he likes to run a little on the rich side; too little fuel and the engine will starve and stall, and he prefers to err on the safe side.

DeMarco specifically disagreed with the contention that the Camel is a hard aircraft to learn. He had no trouble picking it up, he told me. (I have to add that I don't know how many hours he had before he started learning the Camel.) To his way of thinking, the major problem RFC/RAF trainees would have had is that they graduated to the Camel from the Avro 504. Though the 504 was a rotary, it was completely different in its handling. It was balanced to provide a degree of stability, was easy to handle, and allowed left- or right-hand turns equally easily. This was not the case with the Camel, and DeMarco says the Camel's handling quirk are especially noticeable at low altitudes.

I hope I've succeeded in muddying the waters even further. Somehow I doubt we'll ever completely settle this discussion. But that's just fine with me.

In the meantime, tomorrow I'll try to post some notes about starting and taking off in a Le Rhone-powered machine.

[Stephanie]

I would be interested in knowing what other types of aircraft Mr. DeMarco flew before flying and in addition to flying this Camel replica. It is also interesting to remember that the men who flew the Camels and Avros and wrote about them did so when aviation, let alone aviation training, were new to the world, and there was very little with which to compare flight handling then that we can really identify with now! Familiarity influences impressions.

And always keep in mind how different a time this was from our own, especially in outlook. For example, the spin in those days was considered insurmountable, unrecoverable: you spun, you died. Perhaps the key was not so much in actual aerodynamics, but in training. Hartney notes the extreme differences between the European scouts and the American Jenny, and that American training left something to be desired (he thought that flying straight and level was useless as training-- yet that's what passed for training in the U.S. in 1917-18). Even Cecil Lewis was counseled, as if it were some forbidden secret, that now that you learned to fly, PRACTICE as much as you can... obvious to we of today, yes? Christ, Lewis (no relation) didn't even know how to loop, or to even dive (to gain speed) before starting this manouver...
So you've soloed in a Cessna or a Piper; now do the same in a Camel. Think you're up to it? No? So, does that make you a bad pilot or the Camel a dangerous plane?

Check the latest WW I Aero for a nice article on flying the Nieuport 11 by Gene. It gives some interesting bits on how to handle the airplane and how squirrely it is. As for transition from anything else to the Camel, the engine is *the* issue. Before anyone gets the idea I really know anything of substance, this was all gleaned from talking with Gene and Ed Vilsinius before Ed moved on. Ed was at the time flying the Albatros, which he enjoyed and was transitioning to the rotary powered planes. The standard procedure was to get time in the AVRO 504 with the Gnome before getting the Camel, which at Rhinebeck, also has the Gnome. Ed never did get to fly the rotary powered stuff as far as I know, but it was interesting to see that the training method hasn't changed in 80 years. Once Fred Murrin has his Camel completed a gets a few hours in it, I think he'd be the guy to ask. He'll also have the benefit of being "fresh" in the type.

Interesting that you (or Gene) describe the Nie 11 as "squirrely." I'd have thought it was much more mellow than most rotary powered craft.

On a related note, is anyone out there aware of first-hand information about flying the Thomas-Morse Scout?

[stephen]

Great stuff, all. Thanks for the reading.

BTW, Fred's experience in his DrI may render him less of a Camel novice than we think. Different animals, but the Camel and DrI both had that strange rotary thing going. Can't wait to hear what he says.

I don't know about the Sopwith, but a fact that jumped out of a article written a few years ago by a man who actually built and flew a full-sized replica DR-1 was that the envelope for the Center of Gravity was only TWO inches, and the aircraft could be made nose or tail heavy just by the pilot leaning forward or back. That and that the DR-1, according to an old man in Chicago who told me as I sat at his feet that he had flown them, would tend to shed the fabric from the underside of the top wing in a steep dive, which killed more than one pilot who wasn't expecting it... I have never heard of the Camel sharing these kinds of operational quirks, but I'm new here...

[stephen]

Fred, I think the DrI's wing troubles only appeared in early versions of the plane during August and Sept of '17. The Tripe was then removed from service til around December when it returned to duty with a clean bill of health.

No doubt the war would have turned out the same, but minus the wing problems you have to wonder how many German aces could have put another 6 or 8 notches on their victory list.

Hey, has anyone ever investigated the possibility of Voss' wings abandoning him at the moment of truth, when he suddenly straightened out and appeared to glide toward German lines? Hmmmm. Nah. Probably not.

That this wizened old man, who probably was in his 60's-70's back then, was descibing things that happened 40 years before to someone who was still amblivalent about the Easter Bunny, is amusing now, because I quite frankly did not know whether to believe him. To meet someone who was actually there...
Anyhow, I also have a vague memory of the Nieuport 17's having the same problem, and being pulled from service because it, only to discover that if the seam for the fabric covering was moved from the leading edge of the wing back 10 Cm., the problem vanished. Am I dreaming?

That this wizened old man, who probably was in his 60's-70's back then, was descibing things that happened 40 years before to someone who was still amblivalent about the Easter Bunny, is amusing now, because I quite frankly did not know whether to believe him. To meet someone who was actually there...
Anyhow, I also have a vague memory of the Nieuport 17's having the same problem, and being pulled from service because it, only to discover that if the seam for the fabric covering was moved from the leading edge of the wing back 10 Cm., the problem vanished. Am I dreaming?