Tell us, CP....
Tell us, CP....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here ya go.
The original Camel had the choice of two engines, the Clerget and Le Rhone. The former version was actually found - brand new in France - and this was placed in a Camel that was built for Leisure Sport in 1977, by the late Viv Bellamy's workshops at Land End (St.Just). Starting the engine required each cylinder to be injected with castor oil. Then it was swung and hopefully it would start. It nearly always did but it was never exactly reliable - except when it was running. To see the engines you could visit the Science Museum, they have both there.
The Clerget Camel was hairy to fly. In France and elsewhere it killed a number of pilots when they crashed. Perhaps we should say that the pilots were not capable of flying it properly and got into difficulties it was impossible to recover from. I should also explain that with a rotary engine, the aeroplane tries to rotate with the engine. (This is also true of high torque engines like the Bristol Centaurus fitted to the Tempest and Sea Fury.) So doing manoeuvres that are not thought out would cause the aeroplane to flick quite violently, at the top of a loop especially, and enter a spin. It was from this that it was difficult to recover from. These were the days when spinning was not altogether understood and had only been tried in a limited form at Netheravon in circa 1916. It would also do it in a slow roll, or almost any kind of roll like the popular Immelman turn (a climbing roll off the top). However, as with all aerobatics entry speed is the secret to performing what you want to do correctly. There were, of course, many pilots who flew it very well and scored many victories with it in battle. These include Mannock and Ball, the WW1 fighter aces.
All in all it was a brilliant fighter aircraft, quite fast and highly manoeuvrable. Indeed, it was perfectly possible to turn inside any German aircraft, well the ones we had anyway, but even then not as well as the SE5A. It also has to be said that Tommy Sopwith designed a superb fighting machine, which was a joy to fly. We agreed that it was easy to empathise with the pilots who flew them in battle, realising the problems they had. The Clerget Camel left us in 1979 and went to "a museum" but is now at the Brooklands Museum, in Surrey. When it went, it had a total of 9 1/2 hours of actual flown time, not much more now I understand. The engine life was around 50 hours maximum.
The other Camel had a Warner Scarab radial engine and had less vice than the Clerget. This is the one we chose to use at our displays around the country. The pilot who flew it most was Brian Lecomber and it was he who got to know it better than any one of three pilots authorised to fly it.
Take off was fairly simple so long as you were dead into wind and you had primed the engine correctly otherwise it would cut. You were in the air by about 35 knots and everything after that was fairly straightforward except for the care you had to use whilst doing aerobatics.
Landing was always interesting and required ground handler’s to grab the wings as soon as you came near to stopping. This was because a gust could flip the aeroplane on it's back because the lower wing has a quite pronounced di-hedral - or do an expensive ground loop that could easy break some wood. There were no luxuries like brakes or flaps so you just had to do it right. I soon learned that to land a Camel properly you must stall it onto the ground. It was a fine line but one which always worked.
I had about 18 hours total time in AWYY and 4 hours in BFCZ.
As I said the Clerget Camel is in the Brooklands Museum and 'YY' is in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton. They’re for you to see if you wish.
The original Camel had the choice of two engines, the Clerget and Le Rhone. The former version was actually found - brand new in France - and this was placed in a Camel that was built for Leisure Sport in 1977, by the late Viv Bellamy's workshops at Land End (St.Just). Starting the engine required each cylinder to be injected with castor oil. Then it was swung and hopefully it would start. It nearly always did but it was never exactly reliable - except when it was running. To see the engines you could visit the Science Museum, they have both there.
The Clerget Camel was hairy to fly. In France and elsewhere it killed a number of pilots when they crashed. Perhaps we should say that the pilots were not capable of flying it properly and got into difficulties it was impossible to recover from. I should also explain that with a rotary engine, the aeroplane tries to rotate with the engine. (This is also true of high torque engines like the Bristol Centaurus fitted to the Tempest and Sea Fury.) So doing manoeuvres that are not thought out would cause the aeroplane to flick quite violently, at the top of a loop especially, and enter a spin. It was from this that it was difficult to recover from. These were the days when spinning was not altogether understood and had only been tried in a limited form at Netheravon in circa 1916. It would also do it in a slow roll, or almost any kind of roll like the popular Immelman turn (a climbing roll off the top). However, as with all aerobatics entry speed is the secret to performing what you want to do correctly. There were, of course, many pilots who flew it very well and scored many victories with it in battle. These include Mannock and Ball, the WW1 fighter aces.
All in all it was a brilliant fighter aircraft, quite fast and highly manoeuvrable. Indeed, it was perfectly possible to turn inside any German aircraft, well the ones we had anyway, but even then not as well as the SE5A. It also has to be said that Tommy Sopwith designed a superb fighting machine, which was a joy to fly. We agreed that it was easy to empathise with the pilots who flew them in battle, realising the problems they had. The Clerget Camel left us in 1979 and went to "a museum" but is now at the Brooklands Museum, in Surrey. When it went, it had a total of 9 1/2 hours of actual flown time, not much more now I understand. The engine life was around 50 hours maximum.
The other Camel had a Warner Scarab radial engine and had less vice than the Clerget. This is the one we chose to use at our displays around the country. The pilot who flew it most was Brian Lecomber and it was he who got to know it better than any one of three pilots authorised to fly it.
Take off was fairly simple so long as you were dead into wind and you had primed the engine correctly otherwise it would cut. You were in the air by about 35 knots and everything after that was fairly straightforward except for the care you had to use whilst doing aerobatics.
Landing was always interesting and required ground handler’s to grab the wings as soon as you came near to stopping. This was because a gust could flip the aeroplane on it's back because the lower wing has a quite pronounced di-hedral - or do an expensive ground loop that could easy break some wood. There were no luxuries like brakes or flaps so you just had to do it right. I soon learned that to land a Camel properly you must stall it onto the ground. It was a fine line but one which always worked.
I had about 18 hours total time in AWYY and 4 hours in BFCZ.
As I said the Clerget Camel is in the Brooklands Museum and 'YY' is in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton. They’re for you to see if you wish.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old Dad, who had the misfortune to fly RE8s ("Harry Tates") in the RFC, told me that a Camel squadron diverted into their patch one day in poor weather and took themselves off en masseto the Mess where they set about the Cognac like it was going out of fashion! Their story was that the rotary engines emitted clouds of unburnt castor oil (dead loss lubrication system)which were inevitably inhaled by the pilots, with the predictable, dire consequences. The only way to guard against these effects and those of anoxia (they flew quite long patrols at 20,000+ ft without O2)was to dose themselves liberally with Cognac. According to Dad, they were half-pi$$ed when they landed and fully pi$$ed when they took off again. 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the RFC/RAF were actually supplied with Brandy by the Authorities for this reason - also, many of these pilots started flying (and fighting)on these hard to fly aircraft with very low hours.
Grandpa Aerotart
While hard to fly what was the overall performance like, ROC, speed etc compared to say a Tigermoth. It's the only aircraft I've flown from that era and I'm curious to hear a comparison, other than that the Tiger is easy to fly, I already know that!
Chuck.
Chuck.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC,
Camel Pilot will give his own impressions but original information we have at the Towers taken from the writing of pilots at the time suggests quite a lot of post war mythology.
May 27th 1917 Wing Captain C.L. Lambe wrote:
Complaints regarding performance above 10,000ft are recorded up till November 1917 and Trenchard demanded a complete re-engining program the following month. The 20,000 foot patrols of legend only occured for a few month in 1918 when entirely different engines were available.
CamelPilot's views on landing are born out by 370 tailskid breakages in a 10 week period in 1918. Meanwhile, the often lethal hyper agility wasn't tamed until a new rudder was introduced in the autumn of 1918 but Sopwith Snipes were already taking over front line squadrons by then.
Rob 'the anorak' Lloyd
Camel Pilot will give his own impressions but original information we have at the Towers taken from the writing of pilots at the time suggests quite a lot of post war mythology.
May 27th 1917 Wing Captain C.L. Lambe wrote:
There are two 130 Clerget Camels at Dover which will not get to 10,000 ft in 13 minutes with an ordinary weight pilot. This performance is below that which I insist on for the 80-hp Sopwith Pup. You will remember that when (Harry) Hawker flew the first Camel the supposed climb was 10,000 feet in 6mins 50 secs.
CamelPilot's views on landing are born out by 370 tailskid breakages in a 10 week period in 1918. Meanwhile, the often lethal hyper agility wasn't tamed until a new rudder was introduced in the autumn of 1918 but Sopwith Snipes were already taking over front line squadrons by then.
Rob 'the anorak' Lloyd
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC, this might be of interest.
The Tiger has a stall speed of around 35mph plus 10% as I recall. The Camel has one of about 36kts (41mph) The Tiger will fly straight and level at around 90mph and the Clerget Camel will do just a little less. The Scarab Camel however, would go a bit quicker but is irrelevant since there was no such engine in WW1. But both were much more manouverable. ROC on the Tiger was around the 1200’ mark and the Clerget Camel was around 1500’. But I note that our "Towers" records has found a quote about this which is interesting. And just about right too. When I was flying both Camels, the Clerget Camel objected to my bulk. A mere 188lbs then, and climbed at 1200’ (ish) – later when flying the Scarab Camel I was at about 208 lbs and it’s ability to climb at anything better than 1100’ was getting comments from the owners so I had to scale down pretty rapidly. But as it happened the Clerget Camel was taken out of the display scene altogether and we concentrated on the Scarab Camel.
However, our display operating height was usually only around 1200’ down to 300’ so it didn’t affect it too much. Brian Lecomber, on the other hand, who was what we called a potato with arms and legs and about as much weight, could get airborne faster than anyone else and get to height, whatever it was, faster than anyone else. He flew the aeroplane brilliantly and got the owners to let him ‘use’ it in the McAuley aerobatic competition. He faired well, but the Stampes were more than a match for him and it!!
So, comparison twixt the Tiger is not quite like chalk and cheese but comes close. You cannot do in the Camel what you can do in the Tiger, which is a very forgiving aeroplane. The Camel isn’t. If you don’t fly it correctly you can, and will, get a bite that will make you think – at the very least. However, the Warner Scarab engined version was more of a pussycat, an older cat, but still will the ability to scratch and claw.
Top speed was similar to the Tiger but ailerons, rudder and elevators on the Camel were infinitely better than the Tiger. As PPT says the rudder was improved but too late to see how much better the aeroplane was going to be in battle.
We did, one day, compare a loop in either aeroplane. One at each end of the airfield and the Camel had finished, as the Tiger was still half way down the vertical. The 10c engined Tiger was marginally better than though.
We also pitted the Camel against our German fighters – but I will save that for another day.
The Tiger has a stall speed of around 35mph plus 10% as I recall. The Camel has one of about 36kts (41mph) The Tiger will fly straight and level at around 90mph and the Clerget Camel will do just a little less. The Scarab Camel however, would go a bit quicker but is irrelevant since there was no such engine in WW1. But both were much more manouverable. ROC on the Tiger was around the 1200’ mark and the Clerget Camel was around 1500’. But I note that our "Towers" records has found a quote about this which is interesting. And just about right too. When I was flying both Camels, the Clerget Camel objected to my bulk. A mere 188lbs then, and climbed at 1200’ (ish) – later when flying the Scarab Camel I was at about 208 lbs and it’s ability to climb at anything better than 1100’ was getting comments from the owners so I had to scale down pretty rapidly. But as it happened the Clerget Camel was taken out of the display scene altogether and we concentrated on the Scarab Camel.
However, our display operating height was usually only around 1200’ down to 300’ so it didn’t affect it too much. Brian Lecomber, on the other hand, who was what we called a potato with arms and legs and about as much weight, could get airborne faster than anyone else and get to height, whatever it was, faster than anyone else. He flew the aeroplane brilliantly and got the owners to let him ‘use’ it in the McAuley aerobatic competition. He faired well, but the Stampes were more than a match for him and it!!
So, comparison twixt the Tiger is not quite like chalk and cheese but comes close. You cannot do in the Camel what you can do in the Tiger, which is a very forgiving aeroplane. The Camel isn’t. If you don’t fly it correctly you can, and will, get a bite that will make you think – at the very least. However, the Warner Scarab engined version was more of a pussycat, an older cat, but still will the ability to scratch and claw.
Top speed was similar to the Tiger but ailerons, rudder and elevators on the Camel were infinitely better than the Tiger. As PPT says the rudder was improved but too late to see how much better the aeroplane was going to be in battle.
We did, one day, compare a loop in either aeroplane. One at each end of the airfield and the Camel had finished, as the Tiger was still half way down the vertical. The 10c engined Tiger was marginally better than though.
We also pitted the Camel against our German fighters – but I will save that for another day.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly Id like to say that this is a great idea for a forum.
Camel pilot - when flying the camel straight and level do you have to use a bit of rudder to keep it straight? Also, is it true that you need loads of left rudder when turning- to keep the nose down if your going left or to keep it up if you're going right? Also does it have a conventional throttle - i heard something about rotary engines only having an on and off setting but that might have been for earlier planes.
Are there any flying camels left today? Or SE5s? Do you know if there are any original WW1 planes left which are still airworthy?(ie not replicas). Do you know of anywhere where a private pilot could fly a replica of one?
By the way - did Ball fly camels? I thought he flew nieuports and then Se5s.
Camel pilot - when flying the camel straight and level do you have to use a bit of rudder to keep it straight? Also, is it true that you need loads of left rudder when turning- to keep the nose down if your going left or to keep it up if you're going right? Also does it have a conventional throttle - i heard something about rotary engines only having an on and off setting but that might have been for earlier planes.
Are there any flying camels left today? Or SE5s? Do you know if there are any original WW1 planes left which are still airworthy?(ie not replicas). Do you know of anywhere where a private pilot could fly a replica of one?
By the way - did Ball fly camels? I thought he flew nieuports and then Se5s.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TM
In a straight line both Camels flew without any rudder input. In a turn the Clerget Camel was in need of rudder but not excessively, they both did. All that was necessary was to keep the bubble in the centre. There was none of the problems you describe as I remember.
The Clerget throttle was of the 'blip' type which was actually rather good when landing.
The Scarab Camel had a more or less convential throttle.
There is one Camel at the Shuttleworth Trust I believe, and there was a magnificent SE5A around, which belonged to the RAF. I have no idea where that is now.
These machines are are like hens teeth now and I doubt that even if there was one you would get the chance to fly one without first gaining the immense respect of the owner. A few, a VERY few, pilots get selected to fly for the Shuttleworth Trust and there you have some beautiful examples of the real thing. But don't knock replicas.
As a matter of interest. Built as ours were by Viv Bellamy, they are exactly like the real thing - one of the builders was none other than John Isaccs himself. A genius of amazingly modest proportions.
After the contract for our replicas was finished, which was a DR1 Fokker Tri-Plane, Clerget Camel and a Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter, Viv turned his attention re-building a full size Hawker Hart and an Albacore. He found, God know's where, a brand new RR Kestrel engine and I was at St. Just on one of the days he did ground runs, that was a wow! I know the Albacore is at Yeovilton but I don't know where the Hart finished up, Hendon probably. Anyway, I can assure you that Viv would turn in his grave if he thought that people didn't think that his aircraft were built to original drawings. If he didn't have them he would never start one.
It's the names of Ball and Mannock that always come to mind don't they - you may well be right though.
[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: CamelPilot ]
In a straight line both Camels flew without any rudder input. In a turn the Clerget Camel was in need of rudder but not excessively, they both did. All that was necessary was to keep the bubble in the centre. There was none of the problems you describe as I remember.
The Clerget throttle was of the 'blip' type which was actually rather good when landing.
The Scarab Camel had a more or less convential throttle.
There is one Camel at the Shuttleworth Trust I believe, and there was a magnificent SE5A around, which belonged to the RAF. I have no idea where that is now.
These machines are are like hens teeth now and I doubt that even if there was one you would get the chance to fly one without first gaining the immense respect of the owner. A few, a VERY few, pilots get selected to fly for the Shuttleworth Trust and there you have some beautiful examples of the real thing. But don't knock replicas.
As a matter of interest. Built as ours were by Viv Bellamy, they are exactly like the real thing - one of the builders was none other than John Isaccs himself. A genius of amazingly modest proportions.
After the contract for our replicas was finished, which was a DR1 Fokker Tri-Plane, Clerget Camel and a Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter, Viv turned his attention re-building a full size Hawker Hart and an Albacore. He found, God know's where, a brand new RR Kestrel engine and I was at St. Just on one of the days he did ground runs, that was a wow! I know the Albacore is at Yeovilton but I don't know where the Hart finished up, Hendon probably. Anyway, I can assure you that Viv would turn in his grave if he thought that people didn't think that his aircraft were built to original drawings. If he didn't have them he would never start one.
By the way - did Ball fly camels? I thought he flew nieuports and then Se5s.
[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: CamelPilot ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst on a Moth rally not that many years ago I ended up at an RAF grass airfield where I believe non display items for the RAF museum were stored. The hangers there contained an unbelievable treasure trove of historic aircraft goodies, maybe that is where the Kestrel engine came from.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viv got hold of the Kestrel in about 1979/80. I suppose it has to be said that there MUST be others around.
Doug Arnold did a search in India somewhere, and came up with something like 8-10 crated Merlins. Never been used.
Just imagine though, what treasures do lurk in barns lofts and old hangars, and the people who have them have absolutely NO idea their worth.
Doug Arnold did a search in India somewhere, and came up with something like 8-10 crated Merlins. Never been used.
Just imagine though, what treasures do lurk in barns lofts and old hangars, and the people who have them have absolutely NO idea their worth.
