Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: dyson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (mark l dyson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: In defense of the Sopwith Camel
Keywords: Sopwith Camel
Message-ID: <10378@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 03:33:33 GMT
References: <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10185@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10240@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10333@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dyson@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (mark l dyson)

In the debates concerning the reletive merits of such aircraft as the Camel
and the Pup, I couldn't help noticing the oft-repeated old saw about the
Camel being 'very tricky to fly.'  The only real problems with the Camel were
its high rotary torque and tail-heaviness.  True, it wasn't hands-off stable
(who'd want to be in a fighter which was) but the only consistant non-combat
mishap was an inclination to ground-loop if 'horsed about' by inexperienced
former Pup pilots.  Many former Camel pilots (Grinnel-Milne for one) have
tried to mitigate the public's attitude about a plane that they claim was
one of the sweetest-handling machines of the war, and not 'tricky' at all
(except to hapless Albatross pilots).  I will agree that the Se-5a was 
probably the best machine the UK produced, in spite of the over-and-under 
gun set-up.

-Mark-