Worst aircraft of the war

[David_Layton]

I think that there are still many misconceptions about certain aircraft reputations.

Greg van W put a very good correction on the Halberstadt D series in. I think that part of the reputation must come from the odd rudder with its two posts holding it in place. However, the 'flying rudder and elevator' meant fast controls. ('flying elevator has no stabilizer, ditto for the rudder without a fin.)

The Camel: I recently read a quote from one of the folks who fly the Shuttleworth Camel stating that the airplane's vices are not that bad. Fred Murrin, who is building a new reproduction and used to fly a Carl Swanson Camel told me that the aircraft, built per the original, is a tame aircraft. The Rhinebeck replica is not a reprodruction. It does not have the correct structure underneath. It is not pleasant to fly. Is the Camel's bad rep due to people flying inaccurate replicas?

[PatrickConnell]

Hello David

You asked:

"Is the Camel's bad rep due to people flying inaccurate replicas?"

I would have to say not entirely. In Arthur Gould Lee's book, "No Parachute" he talks about the huge difference between the Camel and the Pup. He describes her engine response and roominess in the cockpit and then states:

"...Third, her amazing lightness on the controls, lighter even than the a Pup, which is gentle sensitive, while the Camel is fierce, razor sharp. She turns with lightning quickness to the right. You have to be careful taking off, as the engine torque veers her to the left, and you have to apply full right rudder, but it's easy enough once you get the knack."

My understanding of the training for scout pilots by the Brits during this time left much to be desired in terms of total time. Having the basic training on a Farman or Avro (or other training type) for 20 hours or so, then on to a service squadron flying Camels is a recipe for disaster. Those men you quoted flying Camels today are all experienced pilots on multiple types, and no doubt possess a thorough understanding of what to expect from a Camel. This accounts for her being to them, "a tame aircraft".

I have been involved in aviation training for 12 years or so with thousands of flight hours and flight instruction given on many types and speak objectively from that experience when I say there is no replacement for experience, especially for an extremely sensitive bird like the Camel. Most inexperienced pilots have a tendency to over-control the aircraft, especially when something unexpected occurs such as engine torque suddenly pulling the aircraft off to one side or another, or a gust of wind. It being a sudden and unexpected change in what the pilot expects causes quick and usually too aggressive of a control input to counter the action. Subsequently with a “fierce, razor sharp” responding ship like the Camel, the pilot ultimately risks over-controlling her to oblivion. (Which as we all know was a regular occurrence for the Camel)

The director of an aviation college program I was associated with once told me something that reinforces this theory of mine. He is an ex-Marine aviator, whose first assignment was in attack aircraft in the 1950’s. His first operational mount was the Douglas Skyraider, which also had massive engine torque forces requiring nearly full rudder to counteract. They knew it, were trained to anticipate and correct for it, so no problem.
He then had occasion to fly while briefly stationed at Quantico, the last remaining USMC Vought AU-1’s in service, which were the re-designated, redesigned and strengthened gull wing F4-U Corsairs from WW-2 used in Korea. You may or may not know that the Corsair had a reputation as the “Ensign Eliminator” because of the engine torque turning forces. However, he stated that having been brought up on the Skyraider, whose torque forces were much greater than the Corsair, he found the ole “U-Bird” to be a docile kitten to fly in comparison. He also said he could see that the Corsairs engine torque was great enough to in fact be deadly in unschooled hands.

In flying, training, knowledge and experience are irreplaceable when it comes to survival. I have often wondered how in the heck anyone with less than 20 hours total time in WW-1 or any air war survived at all. All the facets involved with merely flying a plane safely off the ground and back again are legion. Group with that limited knowledge of aerodynamics by the manufacturers of the era, the less than reliable powerplants, flying under 100 foot ceilings and the like, as well as enemy aviators and ground gunners trying to kill you, and holy smoke!!! Amazing anyone at all lived through it to tell the tale.

Just my two cents worth folks.

I wish you all well and safe flying

Patrick

[StephenLawson]

'...In future I may well keep my expert observations to myself. :-/

Don't go changing to try to please me you've never gone that far before...the rest of the song La la lah...Take a seat by the fire old man I'll be mother and pour.

[EdStevens]

My original train of thought here was aircraft that, had you been told you were to fly at the front, would have resulted in a feeling of "abandon hope, all ye who enter here." It would not matter how good a pilot you were; you would NOT want to have to face the enemy in this aeroplane.

My examples of the B.E.12 fighter and R.E.7 bomber are still the best IMO. I'd probably add the B.E.2 as well, certainly once the Fokkers appeared on the scene. Totally outclassed.

Once mastered, the Camel was almost unbeatable and I would have had great confidence in it as a mount, so I would not put it in the group.

Regardless of its defenders, I don't think I'd be exactly thrilled at spending my days in a Harry Tate. Remind me again of what the plan is once you've got an Albatros or two on your tail?

[StephenLawson]

author=EdStevens wrote;'...My original train of thought here was aircraft that, had you been told you were to fly at the front, would have resulted in a feeling of "abandon hope, all ye who enter here." It would not matter how good a pilot you were; you would NOT want to have to face the enemy in this aeroplane...Once mastered, the Camel was almost unbeatable and I would have had great confidence in it as a mount, so I would not put it in the group.'

The problem with 'master-beating a Camel' is that historically speaking the average novice didn't live long enough to put the experience to good use. They were evidently pretty ornery critters (the Camels.) *The average pilot today has had some experience with aircraft and previous training to some extent. *Imagine the 1918 student that may or likely not have had any real flying time previously.

[Tailspin]

Allied pilots generally hated airplanes with backward stagger to the wings - quite correctly in the case of the French Dorands and British DH5's but unfairly for the Sopwith Dolphin. German pilots were often prejudiced against anything other than the Fokker DVII - correctly in most cases, but unfairly to the Roland DVI and, it has been argued, Pfalz DXII. In an earlier time, German pilots were prejudiced against anything other than the Albatross DIII. The negative things said about the Halberstadt D types were mostly due to the fact that they were not Albatrosses. The bad reputation of the Roland DII and Fokker DI thru DV were quite well earned.

Pushers were often distrusted and were monoplanes. At least one promising type, the Bristol M1C, was relegated to secondary fronts for not other reason than that it was a monoplane.

My personal nominees for the least successful planes flown in squadron service by the RFC are the BE12 and the Martinsyde Elephant. Neither type lasted long in France and both allowed the German circuses to run up the score.

Tom

[Vigilant]

Remind me again of what the plan is once you've got an Albatros or two on your tail?

"The shoot was going fairly well and we were well over the lines, and like fools both of us were gazing at the target, when suddenly there was a terrific burst of machine-gun fire and four Hun machines dropped through the clouds right on top of us. I at once put our machine into a vertical bank and fell like a stone about 500 feet, then I pulled her out straight again and we made a running fight of it back to our lines. The Huns were fairly out for blood and dived on us time after time. Short kept his head well and worked his gun like steam. ...

"Bullets simply zipped all over the place and I never thought we could get clear. I did a series of very steep spirals and S-turns and managed to get back to our lines, where our Archie started. The shells came much nearer to us than to the Huns but it had the desired effect, for the Huns left us."
-- Lt. Charles Smart, 5 Sqn (12Aug17)

So in summary, you take advantage of the fact a 2-seater can continue to fire at the enemy while running for the lines and make yourself as hard a target as possible. Clearly the RE8 was not 'hopelessly unmanoeuvrable'. * Smart & Short were credited with an OOC.

Vig.

[baclightning]

Well, I wouldn't want to be the gunner perched in the pulpit of a SPAD A.2, fitted with skis, in Russia, in the middle of winter, with the pilot desperately searching for a safe landing spot...

Among non-operational aircraft, I think you'd have a hard time beating the Linke-Hofmann R.I, which one pilot called, in one of the classic aviation quotes of all-time, "not an aircraft but a sickness." Ouch!

[EdStevens]

I have another potential candidate, if not as bad as the others: the D.H.9.

Here's an aircraft that did not perform as well as the one it was supposed to replace (the D.H.4), was used as primarily a long-range bomber yet suffered from constant engine failures, and that Trenchard tried to have cancelled in November of 1917 yet couldn't, and ended up in large scale production. I suppose one can argue that the problem was more the engines than the airframe in the D.H.9, but still -- I consider the D.H.4 with a Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII the Mosquito of its day (it could outrun virtually any enemy fighter once it was free of its bombs) -- and this was supposed to replace it?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

HistoryDude:
When MvR took command of Jasta 11, in January 1917, it was equipped with the Halb.D.II aircraft. After MvR cracked the spar on the lower wing of his Alb.D.III he choose a Halb.D.II to fly!
Structually it was good and very maneuverable and Halb D.II at 730 kg weighed less than the Alb.D.II at 888kg. that is a 347 lb difference.
Just some food for thought!
Blue skies,
Dan-San