CAMELS.

[Ginger.]

Just been reading a book about Camel pilots. This agile little killer of friend and foe accounted for more enemy aircraft than any other. Yet all the top lads flew the SE5.
Any thoughts on this one chaps.

[MilesC]

Don MacLaren and Ray Collishaw wouldn't have agreed with you. *:

[EARTHLING]

Ginger

I seem to recall that Collishaw number 3 in the British list, flew the following Sopwiths: Triplane,Pup, Camel.

Peter L

[Lufbery]

Ginger,

I have an essay at home, "British Claims and German Losses," that states, essentially:

(1) British claims for the Camel are wildly overblown.

and

(2) The Camel killed a lot of pilots in accidents.

so,

(3) Depending on how you look at the data (that is, how much you think the British claims are inflated), it is entirely possible that more British pilots died in Camel accidents than German pilots were shot down by Camels!

I don't entirely buy the author's conclusion, but I do agree that the ratio of Camel losses to Camel vitories is not nearly as wonderful as many have claimed over the years.

I started a discussion on this topic a year or two ago under the title "Was the Camel a dog?" (Or something like that). I'd post a link, but I'm having trouble the the fourm search engine.

Anyway, in the Camel's defense, experienced pilots seemed to like it very much. New, and poorly trained pilots, however, died in it at alarming rates.

Regards,

[MikeW]

New, and poorly trained pilots, however, died in it at alarming rates.

Now that's hardly the aeroplane's fault, is it?

When the RNAS Squadrons on loan to the RFC were suffering heavy casualties in the summer of 17, a new pilot might well get his first flight in a camel on the day he arrived - not a practice flight but a full blown patrol over the lines.

I don't know about the RFC, but late in 1917 the RNAS added extra training after a pilot had met the requirements for his RAC Certificate, the Manston War School was set up specifically to give rookie pilots training in front line aircraft (the Camel in the case of the RNAS) and also practice in the latest tactics being employed at the front. No.12 Squadron also used Camels, pilots usually spent a week or so flying them around Dunkerque before being posted to an operational squadron.

Experienced Naval pilots like Mel Alexander and Nick Carter were very enthusiastic about the camel, even though both had to treat the machine with great caution at first introduction.


Mike

[StephenLawson]

Greetings all: I have been doing some research on the Camel as of late. The Americanized version as it were. *Four fully equipped squadrons and multipule examples of single and double airframes issued to units for various reasons.
1. It seems that it depends on what aircraft that the individual pilot was trained on. It has been said that there were two types of pilots.
A. Rotary.
B. Inline.
2. Replacement and refit capabilities of the unit. Supply
A. Proficiency of the oily fingered brothers.
B. Availablity of rebuild and replacement parts.

For one example, the 138th Aero trained on Spads was initially issued ' Gnome Camels' while the 41st Aero trained on *Sopwith rotaries was issued Spads. It was an initiative by the officers of these two units that motivated a 'swap' between them. A fellow by the name of Kelton from the 185th Aero has written that the 'Gnome Sopwith' was an absolute joy to fly. Its compression ratio being so low that if the motor stalled mid air all you had to do to restart was go into a shallow dive. *The prop would windmill and you could restar easily. The 17th Aero's ground officer Lt. Clapp published a book on the unit in 1920 and discussed the maintenance schedule of the 'LeRhône Camels' as being easily handled. *One engine was installed and its ready replacement waiting on the block. Others were maintained as back ups. *Across the field at the 148th Aero the boys flew 'Clerget Camels' and were *Pilots Taylor and E.W. Springs both spoke about the proficiency of the unit mechanics to keep the aircraft - 'crates' in good flying order. Even Springs had a rough landing or two on the Camel.

In general it depends greatly on the training and maintenance schedule success and the pilot in question.

[Lufbery]

Hi Mike,

I said:

New, and poorly trained pilots, however, died in it [the Camel] at alarming rates.

And you said:

Now that's hardly the aeroplane's fault, is it?

No, but if you've got new pilots, why put them in a plane that's difficult to fly? I suspect that the British had to have known what was going on with pilot attrition. I suppose they felt that they had no choice but to throw newbies to the wolves. The additional squadron training you mention seems to corroborate the fact that at least some people recognized the need for additional training.

Just for grins, here's a what-if scenario. What if the Sopwith firm had been made to produce licensed copies of the SE5a, and there were no Camel? I suspect that there would have been many fewer pilot deaths due to accidents, but I'm not sure what sort of effect there would have been on the front.

In any event, wasn't the Snipe supposed to be an improved Camel? My understanding is that British command understood that the Camel had some nasty flying quirks and they commissioned the Snipe to correct those.

Regards,

[Vigilant]

I suppose they felt that they had no choice but to throw newbies to the wolves.

There's also the point that pilot training in the RFC was abysmal until Smith-Barry's Gosport System revolutionised it. This didn't occur until Autumn 1917 as I recall - so the results would not have been seen before 1918.

Vig.

[MikeW]

Drew,

the point that I was trying to make was that in the RNAS in 1917, rookies were rushed to the front to resupply squadrons that in some cases were down to 8 or 9 pilots. There simply was no time to give them a week settling in, taking things easy with a couple of familiarisation flights every day. It was "all hands to the pump", and a lot of rookies were "wasted" because of their lack of familiarity with the camel and the urgency of the situation.

As for the RNAS putting new pilots into something easier to fly, what do you suggest? The RNAS was forced to give their SPADs to the RFC. Pups and Triplanes were obsolescent and the new pilots would have been shot down instead of spinning in at take off - I suppose their average life expectency migh have gone from minutes to hours!

The RNAS "system" recognised the shortcomings, and implemented a much better training regime, and as Vigilant says above, so did the RFC.


I do agree with your statement that the Snipe was supposed to be an improvement on the Camel, however, when first flown it wasn't, and the Camel had to soldier on throughout 1918 whilst they tried to smooth the bugs out of the Snipe.


mike

[Lufbery]

Drew,

the point that I was trying to make was that in the RNAS in 1917, rookies were rushed to the front to resupply squadrons that in some cases were down to 8 or 9 pilots. There simply was no time to give them a week settling in, taking things easy with a couple of familiarisation flights every day. It was "all hands to the pump", and a lot of rookies were "wasted" because of their lack of familiarity with the camel and the urgency of the situation.

That's what I meant when I said that British command felt they had no choice.

As for the RNAS putting new pilots into something easier to fly, what do you suggest? The RNAS was forced to give their SPADs to the RFC. Pups and Triplanes were obsolescent and the new pilots would have been shot down instead of spinning in at take off - I suppose their average life expectency migh have gone from minutes to hours!

That's a good question, and I'm really not sure what the answer is. I've read that there was some politics involved in aircraft procurement for the *RNAS. I suppose I'd suggest they stay with the Spads or get SE5as.

So, why was the RNAS forced to give up its Spads?

Regards,