View Poll Results: Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sopwith Camel

    26 66.67%
  • Fokker Dr. I

    10 25.64%
  • Neither was better, it's an even match.

    3 7.69%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Dr. I

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,637
    Post Thanks / Like
    The inspiration for the Dr.1 was the Sopwith Triplane.



    Why didn't the Camel have a trimable stab like the Pup and Snipe?

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Lightbulb Why the Dr.1 is better than the Sopwith Camel

    I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings which meant that if you needed to build up speed you could but as soon as you want to turn "well **** there goes a wing" or "dammit hes on my six" the Dr.1 and the Sopwith Camel both have 2 machine guns but each one is a copy of the same gun just made differently to be air cooled now I am not sure but I believe that the German gun had a higher ROF.

  3. #33
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Patton View Post
    I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong
    Where on this thread or any where on this forum was that ever mentioned?
    Quote Originally Posted by Patton View Post
    speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight
    Not really - the only thing increased speed will do is limit your turn rate at a given bank angle. If you increase your bank angle while maintaining level flight, your turn rate will increase but you will reduce airspeed, that's how it works....

    Quote Originally Posted by Patton View Post
    and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings.
    and your evidence of this?

  4. #34
    Senior Member meatloaf109's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    6,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Patton View Post
    I understand that people think speed mean maneuverability but your wrong speed = less turning which means not able to be in a turning dog fight and also the biplane fighters that the allies used had less thick wings which meant that if you needed to build up speed you could but as soon as you want to turn "well **** there goes a wing" or "dammit hes on my six" the Dr.1 and the Sopwith Camel both have 2 machine guns but each one is a copy of the same gun just made differently to be air cooled now I am not sure but I believe that the German gun had a higher ROF.
    Whew! That is one long sentence.








    "Curse you Red Baron!"-Snoopy

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    pound va
    Posts
    2,198
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DR1 did have a thicker airfoil than the Sopwith, had more internal bracing.
    Didn't seem to help it much , the Fokker had all the trouble with folding wings, not the Camel. So much of a problem that the early models were grounded till the problem was traced to faulty workmanship (rushed) and bad glue. That was corrected, then the upper wings started coming off.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    At the end of the day, if the DR1 had been nearly as good as its reputation they would have built more than 320 of them.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    The WW1 author John Guttman did a study on Camel/Dr1 engagements during March through May 1918, and found that during this period, 32 Camel pilots were casualties ( 19 Kia, 5 wia, 8 pow ), while 13 Dr1 pilots were casualties ( 4 Kia, 5 wia, 4 pow ). The German records are not complete, so they may have suffered more than that, but with that caveat, the Dr1 seems to have won the exchange ratio.

  8. #38
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by steve51 View Post
    The WW1 author John Guttman did a study on Camel/Dr1 engagements during March through May 1918, and found that during this period, 32 Camel pilots were casualties ( 19 Kia, 5 wia, 8 pow ), while 13 Dr1 pilots were casualties ( 4 Kia, 5 wia, 4 pow ). The German records are not complete, so they may have suffered more than that, but with that caveat, the Dr1 seems to have won the exchange ratio.
    Unless you can analyze the complete exchange this just proves that the DR1 pilots "may" have had the upper hand on their British adversaries and doesn't necessarily prove which aircraft was the better combat aircraft.

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    FLYBOYJ,
    You're absolutely right, other factors besides aircraft performance affect exchange ratio. The tactical environment of each engagement is very important. IMO the aircraft were pretty well matched regarding combat performance.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ngatimoti
    Posts
    3,004
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dr Is were only ever an interim and were only issued to select units with crack pilots, in lieu of the appearance of the D VII, which Richtofen was eagerly awaiting before his death.

    Structurally, the Dr I was more advanced than the Camel, which was of conventional construction. Reinhold Platz concentrated on welded steel tube fuselage with one piece wings made with a central box spar, which lost its integrity due to faulty manufacture. Originally he wanted full cantilever wings, but wing flutter necessitated the fitting of interplane struts.

    I'd still choose the Camel over the Dr I - the latter has only become popular because of Richtofen, not for any inherent qualities it possesses; the average German pilot was deemed unable to handle it and the Jastas were keenly awaiting the D VII, whose excellent reputation was certainly justified. At the time the Dr I's reputation was certainly not how we view it today.

    I got to speak with a guy who has flown a rotary powered Camel repro (not often you meet these!), he raised an interesting point regarding Camel losses on take off and landing. One thing that had happened to him flying a Camel was that the fuel pump stopped working; naturally causing the aeroplane to crash. The Camel's fuel pump was driven by a small propeller generator, so it relied on this for pressure; no propeller rotation = no pressure.
    Last edited by nuuumannn; 01-25-2013 at 01:04 AM.
    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" Groucho Marx

  11. #41
    Senior Member Readie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plymouth, England
    Posts
    4,269
    Post Thanks / Like
    Both awesome fighters in the right hands and rightly celebrated.
    But, I would prefer to be in a SE5a or Spad....
    Cheers
    John

    Eternal vigilance

  12. #42
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    I would prefer

    Airframe and engine technology were advancing so fast during 1914 to 1918 that 6 months newer design was often a decisive advantage.

    Hs.8 engine which powered so many French built aircraft is a good example. Multiple versions of this engine, many of which were unreliable. If you get a good engine then your SPAD is an effective fighter aircraft. However there's probably an even chance your engine will be defective. That cannot be confidence inspiring during combat operations.

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    pound va
    Posts
    2,198
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think engine failure might have been low down on a pilots list of things to worry about. Several WW1 aircraft had a history of structural failure in flight, The Albatross DV had a lower wing failure problem that was never solved, the Fokker DrI had several upper wing failures in the early models, Lothar Richthofen was lucky to survive after a upper wing failed in his DrI.
    Some Nieuports like to shed their wing fabric, these are faults that would usually result in a pilot's death.
    Then once combat was entered most single seaters had the gas tank right in front of the pilot, except the Sopwith Camel. It was right behind the pilot, i'll bet that was a comfort.
    At least if a engine failed, if it wasn't a catastrophic failure that resulted in a engine fire, a pilot had a good chance of making a controlled landing.

  14. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    110
    Post Thanks / Like
    I prefer the camel, the DR 1 was just that little bit too slow. It was not a hugh margin but the camel still had the ability to start and break off combat at its choosing.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •