Snipe vs the Camel

Dan_San_Abbott · 12 March 2001, 06:03 AM

Gentlemen:
In a previous thread I made a statement that the Sopwith Snipe's performance was inferior to the Sopwith Camel, which is was tio replace in 1919.
The Sopwith 7F1 Snipe was slated to use the new A.B.C. "Dragonfly" 320 h.p. radial engine. The engine turned out to be a dud for a bunch of reasons, however The Snipes performance with the "Dragonfly" and at 10000ft it's airspeed was 148 mph, and it's ceiling was 23000 ft. It did not go into production with the "Dragonfly"engine, the production Snmipes were powered with the 230 h.p. Bentley B.R.2 rotary engine.
Sopwith 7F1 "Snipe"
Airspeed @10000 ft, 121 mph; climb to 10000 ft., 9m 25s; ceiling, 19500 ft..
loaded weight, 2020 lbs.
Sopwith 1F1 "Camel" with 150 h.p. Bentley B.R.1 rotary engine.
Airspeed @10000 ft., 121 mph; climb to 10000ft., 8m10s; ceiling, 22,000 ft.
loaded weight, 1470 lbs.
The long range Sopwith 7F1a "Snipe" with the endurance increased from 3 hours to 4.5 hours was really worse. max a/s @10000 ft. was 114 mph and it's ceiling was 15000 ft., it's was increased to 2271 lbs. This was to be the fighter escort for the RAF bombers in the

Independent Force in 1919 against the German fighters of 1919! It would have been bad news for the RAF.
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Vic_Mouton · 12 March 2001, 06:27 AM

Hi Dan
I wonder how the Snipes would have fared against the DVIII Razor?

VBR
Vic

12 March 2001, 06:31 AM

Performance was perhaps a bad choice of words. What they likely meant was that the Camel was still more manuverable. Since the Snipe's box was longer and the wings not much wider, the Camel still enjoyed it's unique abilty to turn on a dime even over a snipe. actually after looking at the specs, it appears they were pretty close in proportions. Perhaps it was because the Camel was much lighter and the engine's torque would affect the right turns more?

12 March 2001, 07:12 AM

Dan-San: Refresh my memory. Weren't you commenting on the Snipe being used as long-range fighter escorts for bombers, and the fact that their range was no better than the Camel which couldn't reach the intended targets anyway? Strange logic unless your willing to play with lives on a learn as you go basis. But that wasn't that unusual was it.
DD

Vin · 12 March 2001, 08:17 AM

“It was really a larger edition of the ‘camel’, but without the ‘hump’ which gave the camel its name. Powered with 200 H.P. Bentley Rotary engines, (which developed 260 H.P. at 1400 revs.) they had a ceiling of 19000 feet and a top speed of about 127 m.p.h., flying level with a war load. This gave them a slight advantage in speed over the Fokker, but we still could not get as high as the Fokkers. They were of slightly more robust construction than the Camel but were a little less manouevrable. However their rate of climb was better than the Camel, a ceiling of 15000 feet could be reached in 30 minutes, a Camel took upwards of 45 minutes.”

Capt J Wright, Flight C leader 4AFC

Vin

Craig · 12 March 2001, 09:42 AM

15,000 feet in 30 minutes? That's unremarkable - even an Albatros could manage THAT. Or come close.

12 March 2001, 12:16 PM

Vin:
The performance of the Snipe was no better than the Sopwith 1F1Camel, which was a 1917 design and 1917 production that carried into 1918! The design was out dated for 1919 combat operations. It was supposed to be replaced with a aircraft of superior performance, which means go faster at all altitudes, climb quicker and have a higher ceiling. The 1916 Alb. D.III could climb to 5000 m (16400 ft) in 28min, 48 sec.), The 1917 Rumpler C.IV could climb to 5000 m in 30 minutes flat. The 1917 Fok. DR.I could climb to 5000 m in 23min 50 sec. now for 1918, Fok. D.VIIF, 5000m 15min 18 sec. Fok. D.VIII, 5000 m, 15min flat, Junker D.I, 5000 m 12 min 30 sec and a top speed of 240 kph(150mph), 41 had been delivered by 11/11/18 and the SSW D.IV 5000 m in 12 min 6 sec. The Sopwith 7F1 Snipe was at best an aircraft with 1917 performance and performance is the correct word to measure the capabilities of any aircraft, which are airspeed, climb, service ceiling, maneuverability and is it a good gun platform. The 1919 Snipe fell short on the first three. It would have had a very difficult time in 1919!
Blue skies,
Dan-San Abbott

Vin · 12 March 2001, 12:50 PM

It is interesting to read what the blokes who flew the aircraft thought of them. Wright goes on to say that he was sorry to lose the camel. The improvement does appear to be marginal. 4 AFC received their snipes in October so had only a few weeks with them. “Bo” King had 7 victories in that time. I wonder what he thought of it.

I recall a very wise contributor commenting that if the war had lasted until 1920, they would have be flying spitfires and 109’s.

Vin

12 March 2001, 02:57 PM

Well maybe the Snipe wouldn't have performed in 1919, but the F.4 Buzzard sure would have. Maneuverability, other than roll rate (it's important to be able to quickly put the lift vector on the other guy) is not nearly as important as speed.

As far as I know, the F.4 Buzzard could have walked away from anything the Germans had in late '18.

Ron_F · 12 March 2001, 03:20 PM

All,
always be aware of performance given in books. unless they are in fact factory specs for a combat wieghted airframe, the data almost ALWAYS differs from source to source.
ie, i have the camel being a bit slower to 10000ft than the better Snipe. winsock datafiles.
also seen numbers wildly different for the all the fokker series.

DSA, are those factory specs you have for the Fokker series? and if so, can i get all the info for all the climb to times,wieght as tested, speed, etc?
fwiw,
Ron