sopwith camel kill/loss ratio
old hoodoo
Sopwith Camels in WWI.
However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.
Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
including the non-operational losses)?
This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.
Al
Keith Willshaw
"old hoodoo" <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:vohi86d...@corp.supernews.com...
> I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
> Sopwith Camels in WWI.
>
> However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
> killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
> non-combat crashes.
>
> Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
> including the non-operational losses)?
>
It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.
> This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
> don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.
>
It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.
Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.
Keith
Andrew Chaplin
Is it not also fair to say that the Allies used their aircraft more
aggressively than the Central Powers, ranging routinely beyond their
FLOT and exposing them to ground fire?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Erik Pfeister
"Andrew Chaplin" < wrote in message ...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > "old hoodoo" <wrote in message\
> > > > > I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were
credited to
> > > Sopwith Camels in WWI.
> > >
Ven ve were over Normandy on D-Day, ve didn't see one, not one ,Sopwith
Camel!!!
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.
Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings or
Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
msch...@BARFcarolina.rr.com
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Emmanuel.Gustin
: Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
: Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?
If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...
Emmanuel
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.
>
> Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings or
> Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?
Haven't you heard? Salamanders live in fire.
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F896316...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
Absolutely, aggressive patrolling beyond the front lines
was very much the norm
Keith
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
>> Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?
>
> If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
> opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...
I guess it was too slow in coming?
John Halliwell
Schnerd, RN <msch...@BARFcarolina.rr.com> writes
>Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings
>or
>Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?
Could be worse, could be a Cuckoo!
My only source reports claims for nearly 3,000 kills?
--
John
Regnirps
-- Charlie Springer
Regnirps
-- Charlie Springer
Regnirps
Yes, yes, but remember that at the time most people would know the
superstitious stories of salamanders, magical creatures that lived in fire or
started fires, or both. (Probably came from people throwing wet wood on the
fire and hibernating salamanders warming up and crawling out).
-- Charlie Springer
Alan Minyard
<gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be> wrote:
Ah yes, with which one could "slime" the enemy :-)
Al Minyard
Dave Eadsforth
<keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> writes
engine, the guns and ammo, and all its fuel sited in the front six feet
of the airframe, and with its rotary engine could almost literally turn
on a sixpence. No Camel pilot needed to stay in the gunsights of the
enemy for a second longer than he wanted to - a gyroscopically assisted
turn took him right out. Which suggests that most of the Camels lost in
aerial battle were probably flown by novices (which many would have been
after 'Bloody April' in 1917).
Cheers,
Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth
M. J. Powell
<qmeib.177292$3o3.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Erik
Pfeister <ErikPf...@freenet.de> writes
Hehe!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Peter Stickney
Well, there _were_ a few Fokkers. But those Fokkers were flying
Messerchmitts.
(Somebody had to say it)
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Russell Waterson
pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The camel
was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The Germans found
that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have any
success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same boat, slow
but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude while
SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. He writes that sometimes
he would be jelous of them because they were fast er and higher and so were
more able to catch the enemy better but in a Camel he could get out of
trouble easier. The Germans did not want to dogfight Camels because of the
obvious that in a dogfight Camels were better then what the Germans had at
the time
"Dave Eadsforth" <da...@magnum.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UuF2WWAVski$Ew...@magnum.demon.co.uk...
Stephen Harding
> There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a Camel
> pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The camel
> was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The Germans found
> that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have any
> success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same boat, slow
> but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude while
> SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. He writes that sometimes
> he would be jelous of them because they were fast er and higher and so were
> more able to catch the enemy better but in a Camel he could get out of
> trouble easier. The Germans did not want to dogfight Camels because of the
> obvious that in a dogfight Camels were better then what the Germans had at
> the time
I always thought the Sopwith Camel was pretty fast; 130 mph or so, as well as
maneuverable. It's generally considered the best Allied fighter of WWI
(I think), although Spad and SE5a have their adherents.
As a somewhat related question...
PBS recently had a Nova show on "Who Killed the Red Baron?". It mentioned
that he is generally portrayed as having been shot down by a Lt Brown of
the RCAF (RFC??), but the bullet that did him in was noted to have passed
from *below* him, and up and across (from the side) through his chest,
making it questionable that he was actually killed by Brown, in a Sopwith
Camel attacking from behind and above.
It mentioned a couple sets of ground gunners, British and Australian, who
were actively shooting at him too.
Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
shooting down of von Richthofen.
Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
destroyer of the Red Baron?
SMH
M. J. Powell
<har...@cs.umass.edu> writes
>Russell Waterson wrote:
snip
>As a somewhat related question...
>
>PBS recently had a Nova show on "Who Killed the Red Baron?". It mentioned
>that he is generally portrayed as having been shot down by a Lt Brown of
>the RCAF (RFC??), but the bullet that did him in was noted to have passed
>from *below* him, and up and across (from the side) through his chest,
>making it questionable that he was actually killed by Brown, in a Sopwith
>Camel attacking from behind and above.
>
>It mentioned a couple sets of ground gunners, British and Australian, who
>were actively shooting at him too.
>
>Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
>heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
>shooting down of von Richthofen.
>
>Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
>Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
>destroyer of the Red Baron?
On this point I can recommend 'Who Killed The Red Baron' by Carisella &
Ryan. Pub in USA by Daedalus Pub. Co. 1969 My copy is ISBN 0 85617 306 1
pub by PBS.
A good biography and a good analysis of the final flight, with
interviews of many concerned. Photos, sketches, including that of the
trajectory of the fatal bullet.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
George Z. Bush
Russell Waterson wrote:
There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a Camel
pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918.
Odd you should mention that book. I'm sitting here with my copy of "Winged
Victory" by Geoffrey Perret, published by Random House in 1993, in hand. It's
about the Army Air Forces in World War II, and has nary a mention of Sopwith
Camels anywhere in it. (^-^)))
I guess the copywrite laws only provide protection for the author and his works
for a limited period of time.
George Z.
John Mullen
news:vp7t069...@corp.supernews.com...
ISTR titles aren't coyright.
John
John Halliwell
<har...@cs.umass.edu> writes
>Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
>heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
>shooting down of von Richthofen.
>
>Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
>Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
>destroyer of the Red Baron?
I saw presumably the same documentary a few months ago in the UK.
Unfortunately I can't remember what the final conclusions were, but
remember thinking the 'new information' supposedly revealed was 'old
news' to me. The suggestion that someone on the ground may have shot him
down is not new, although the identity of those who may have done it may
be new.
Far too many documentaries these days pretend to be revealing new
information, when most are just re-telling old information and need a
new angle to promote the programme.
--
John
Alan Minyard
IIRC the "new" information was a computer simulation, which left them
with the conclusion that they could not reach a conclusion. We still
do not (and probably never will) know for sure. Personally I think the
ground pounder with a "silver bullet" probably made the shot.
Al Minyard
Stephen Harding
> IIRC the "new" information was a computer simulation, which left them
> with the conclusion that they could not reach a conclusion. We still
Sounds like a news "tease" from one of the major networks. Get you to
tune in to find something you already know, or isn't as advertised. I
generally have a lot of respect for Nova (or was it Frontline??), so I
don't believe they'd do something like that. But who knows?
> do not (and probably never will) know for sure. Personally I think the
> ground pounder with a "silver bullet" probably made the shot.
If the fatal bullet truly had the path described in the show, it's difficult
to see how Brown could have shot down the Baron.
Could be a combination of both though. Brown damaged the DrI. badly enough
that it went down, but some ground gunner killed/mortally wounded Richthofen
before he could get the aircraft down or maneuver out of danger.
SMH
Russell Waterson
"George Z. Bush" <georg...@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:vp7t069...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Stephen Harker
> Russell Waterson wrote:
>
> > There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a Camel
> > pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The camel
> > was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The Germans found
> > that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have any
> > success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same boat, slow
> > but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude while
> > SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. [...]
>
> I always thought the Sopwith Camel was pretty fast; 130 mph or so, as well as
> maneuverable. It's generally considered the best Allied fighter of WWI
> (I think), although Spad and SE5a have their adherents.
I'll try to look up some numbers tonight (JM Bruce _War Planes of the
First World War_ or the Profile series may cover this), but my memory
of various references matches the comments from "Winged Victory". The
numbers I have in memory for Camels are around 120 mph at sea level,
the SE5a was around 130 to 135 mph at sea level. The Camel
performance was supposed to fall off more rapidly with height. I
recall comments which seemed to be more specifically `Clerget Camels'
suggesting that this may not hold for the BR1 engined Camels (or less
so). It is probably true that variations in engine output and
reliability was greater in WW1 than in WW2 due to lower metallurgical
and other quality control, which would further complicate matters. It
is recorded that in December 1917 the British had around 400 SE5a
airframes awaiting engines, the quality of many of the supplied
engines not being acceptable.
In 1918 the two Australian squadrons (AFC squadron #2 with SE5a and #4
with Camels if I recall correctly, don't remember the RFC/RAF numbers)
were operated together with the SE5a's used for top cover and the
Camels for low level. When the Camels were replaced with Snipes this
tended to be reversed, suggesting that Snipes had a better altitude
performance.
--
Stephen Harker Stephen...@spme.monash.edu.au
School of Physics & Materials Engineering
Monash University http://www.ph.adfa.edu.au/s-harker/
Baloney Baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
Russell Waterson
say at max 130 mph that usually means when the aircraft is new and running
well. Most aircraft especially in ww1 would not be able to go the max speed
as they got damaged, worn out, maintainance not up to scatch etc. It might
be said that the Camel went 120 but in reality it was more like 110 or even
less.
"Stephen Harker" <Stephen...@spme.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m3k76zs...@harker.spme.monash.edu.au...
Russell Waterson
the Mirage IIIO and the F18. They looked at the Mirage and said it was a
mach 2 fighter, how could the F 18 keep up? They forget the Mirage only
could go that fast at altitude and stuggled even to get past mach 1 at low
altitude. The F 18 would do it easily at lower altitudes which is the area
where most combats would tend to be fought.
Max spead stats can be deceiving in such comparisons
"Russell Waterson" <r-swa...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3aclb.160382$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Stephen Harding
> It needs to be remembered that when the performance figures are expressed
> say at max 130 mph that usually means when the aircraft is new and running
> well. Most aircraft especially in ww1 would not be able to go the max speed
> as they got damaged, worn out, maintainance not up to scatch etc. It might
> be said that the Camel went 120 but in reality it was more like 110 or even
> less.
OK, but that would be largely true across the board. Everyone was experiencing
slower speeds than new.
The Sopwith Camel is the quintessential WWI allied warplane, and not solely
because that's what Snoopy fights the Red Baron in.
It was a very capable aircraft, although I understand difficult to fly.
Lot's of torque roll that killed a lot of novice pilots, and required
constant attention and adjustment in flight. Considered the most maneuverable
fighter ever built by some (that torque roll brought nose up in left hand and
down in right hand turns; something experienced pilots made good use of). It
also killed more enemy aircraft than any other allied type (almost 1300).
Of course, having said that, it's possible that the Fokker Dr.I is thought
of as the quintessential German fighter of WWI, probably precisely because
of Snoopy and the "cursed Red Baron", even though it doesn't really have a
right to be considered among the best German aircraft of the war.
Probably Albatross gets that laurel and the Fokker DVII best over-all.
SMH
Stephen Harker
> > performance was supposed to fall off more rapidly with height. [...]
> > It is probably true that variations in engine output and
> > reliability was greater in WW1 than in WW2 due to lower metallurgical
> > and other quality control, which would further complicate matters.
> It needs to be remembered that when the performance figures are
> expressed say at max 130 mph that usually means when the aircraft is
> new and running well. Most aircraft especially in ww1 would not be
> able to go the max speed as they got damaged, worn out, maintainance
> not up to scatch etc. It might be said that the Camel went 120 but
> in reality it was more like 110 or even less.
That is a given in any aircraft comparison. The recorded comments of
the US naval aviators in late 1944 about the reduced performance of
the old Hellcats being a case in point. Unfortunately most published
figures don't record details of engine and aircraft use for WW1, the
prototype figures being an obvious exception. The original data may
have this, but most of the sources I have looked at don't. That said,
these are some figures for Camels and some comparison aircraft. Some
of these number were clearly `calculator converted' from metric.
There may be enough aircraft to get some idea of trends, but more data
would help.
Max Speed at height Serv Ceil Climb Climb Engine Ref
(mph) (feet) (feet) 10,000 15,000
(m:s) (m:s)
Camel F1 115 6,500 19,000 130hp Clerget [1]
Camel F1 122 SL 24,000 110hp Le Rhone[1]
Camel F1 117 10,000 21,000 150hp BR1 [1]
Camel F1 110 10,000 18,500 100hp Monosoupape[1]
Camel F1 104.5 10,000 18,000 11:45 23:15 130hp Clerget [2]
Some comparison data:
Dolphin 1 121 10,000 20,000 200hp H-S [1]
Dolphin 1 127 10,000 21,000 10:30 19:30 200hp H-S [5]
SE5a 135 SL NA 240hp H-S [1]
SE5a 137 SL NA 200hp Viper [1]
SE5a 126 10,000 17,000 13:15 27:35 200hp H-S [2]
SE5a 120 15,000 19,500 10:50 20:50 200hp Viper [3]
Fokker DVII 117 3,280 19,685 Mercedes [1]
Albatros DV 116 3,280 20,500 Mercedes [1]
Albatros DV 103 NA NA Mercedes [4]
Spad XIII 139 6,500 21,800 220hp H-S [1]
[1] J W R Taylor, Combat Aircraft of the World, Ebury Press and
Michael Joseph, London 1969
[2] J M Bruce, War Planes of the First World War, Fighters Vol 2,
MacDonald, London 1968
[3] The SE5a, Profile 1, Profile Publications, 1971
[4] The Albatros DV, Profile 9, Profile Publications, 1965
[5] The Sopwith Dolphin, Profile 169, Profile Publications, 1967
There is clearly a fairly large variation in performance even with
nominally the same engine. This is not too surprising: in late 1917
who Wolseley had the British licence to manufacture the Hispano-Suiza
had major problems and a lot of their engines were defective, one of
the French suppliers produced engines with defective gears. The
prototype SE5a with a French 200hp Hispano-Suiza recorded considerably
better climbing performance and service ceiling than the one listed
above. This may reflect the engine age/wear or quality control
problems.
In 1918 did not have the testing regime and materials knowledge to
rapidly improve this. A large number of British 1918 designs were
supposed to use the ABC Dragonfly radial ordered off the drawing
board. The Dragonfly proved incurably defective and the designs using
it got nowhere. A couple did appear in modified form later using the
Bristol Jupiter (ex Cosmos Jupiter) the first engine to pass a type
test (20 Hour?) which was introduced following this debacle. Bristols
put a lot of work into design and materials selection to improve
reliability and ease maintenance, this takes time that was not
available in the war.
Russell Waterson
is very interesting especially when we are trying to get a handle on what it
was like for them. I am not sure but it is a guess any way, but would a
squadron have an aircraft like the camel and have them with different
engines and hence different performances? E.g. one pilot have the Clerget
another the Bentley another the Br1 etc.
It would make maintainance difficult and formation flying hard. The
idiosyncrasies of of each type would be different so to go from one aircraft
to another would test the skill of a pilot when they had to swap an
aircraft. Does anyone kow much about that?
"Stephen Harker" <Stephen...@spme.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m38yndn...@harker.spme.monash.edu.au...
Stephen Harker
> That is facinating. You did put some work into this and I appreciate it. It
> is very interesting especially when we are trying to get a handle on what it
> was like for them. I am not sure but it is a guess any way, but would a
> squadron have an aircraft like the camel and have them with different
> engines and hence different performances? E.g. one pilot have the Clerget
> another the Bentley another the Br1 etc.
That is a good question. Looking through the references I don't see
an answer. According to the records the RNAS ordered mainly Clerget
and BR1 engined Camels. The RFC may have mainly ordered Clerget
engined Camels (this is my inference from the wording and not
reliable). This would suggest that it is possible that they had mixed
engines in the one squadron and indeed flight. If this was the case
there would have been a considerable advantage in the aircraft with
better performance as these numbers suggest a 10% advantage in speed
was possible.
As a pointer in _Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps_ James McCudden
describes how he installed an engine with the high compression pistons
in his SE5a (taking it from 200hp to 220hp or 240hp). Together with
taking great care with his engine he was able to regularly achieve
22,000 ft and was able to catch and shoot down the high flying Rumpler
reconnaisance aircraft. McCudden at least once mentioned that when he
had to use someone elses aircraft the lower performance was obvious.
McCudden was a mechanic by background and this probably helped in
making sure that the engines were kept to the highest standard.
> It would make maintainance difficult and formation flying hard. The
> idiosyncrasies of of each type would be different so to go from one aircraft
> to another would test the skill of a pilot when they had to swap an
> aircraft. Does anyone kow much about that?
It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
speed and hence it was less of a problem. The maintenance question
could be quite a significant one. However, remember that a lot of
changes in the first world war were ad hoc. Up to 1916 or thereabouts
most squadrons had multiple types of aircraft. The move to
standardisation was probably impeded by the manufacturing limitations.
They may have _preferred_ to have aircraft with the same engine in the
squadron, but had to take what was available. The expansion of the
service may have made it hard to achieve standardisation. Looking at
the references suggests (my inference again) that there was a tendency
to reduce the number of engine types actually used in a given
aircraft. A lot of engines were tested but not actually used in
service. Some hard evidence would be useful.
Mike Marron
>It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
>would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
>pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
>patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
>speed and hence it was less of a problem.
I haven't been following this thread too closely but if it hasn't been
mentioned yet, remember that those old WW1 rotary engines didn't
have throttles. The pilot used an "interupter" switch to alternately
kill the ignition and restart it so as to adjust their speeds. A good
example of this technique (called "blipping") being used is in the
1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" starring Robert Redford.
Stephen Harding
I don't believe "blipping" was a characteristic of all rotary engines
though was it? Certainly was in the case of the Camel.
I've heard and seen the Camel in flight (genuine engine; reproduction
aircraft) at Rhinebeck airfield (see http://hobart.cs.umass.edu/~harding/Rhinebeck/
for some pics I took during a visit in 2001, including the Sopwith Camel)
and it really is quite distinctive sounding in flight.
I would think staying together would be quite challenging given different
engines, different age/wear of the engines, and the blipping throttle
control requirement.
Even during WWII, I've read accounts of the same model aircraft having
difficulties staying together because of differences in engine wear.
SMH
Mike Marron
>>Mike Marron wrote:
>>>It would be interesting to have some real information on this. I
>>>would expect that, to a large extent, when flying in formation the
>>>pilots could compensate by the throttle setting, after all when on
>>>patrol they would be flying at considerably less than the maximum
>>>speed and hence it was less of a problem.
>>I haven't been following this thread too closely but if it hasn't been
>>mentioned yet, remember that those old WW1 rotary engines didn't
>>have throttles. The pilot used an "interupter" switch to alternately
>>kill the ignition and restart it so as to adjust their speeds. A good
>>example of this technique (called "blipping") being used is in the
>>1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" starring Robert Redford.
>I don't believe "blipping" was a characteristic of all rotary engines
>though was it? Certainly was in the case of the Camel.
Probably not "all" but AFAIK blipping was a characteristic of the
vast majority of WW1 rotarys.
>I've heard and seen the Camel in flight (genuine engine; reproduction
>aircraft) at Rhinebeck airfield (see http://hobart.cs.umass.edu/~harding/Rhinebeck/
>for some pics I took during a visit in 2001, including the Sopwith Camel)
>and it really is quite distinctive sounding in flight.
Yep. I understand that severe backfires as the result of blipping
sometimes caused fires to erupt inflight which of course would
promptly engulf the entire dope 'n fabric airframes.
>I would think staying together would be quite challenging given different
>engines, different age/wear of the engines, and the blipping throttle
>control requirement.
All true, not to mention the lack of 2-way radio communications.
>Even during WWII, I've read accounts of the same model aircraft having
>difficulties staying together because of differences in engine wear.
As an aside, besides complete engine failures I've also experienced
a runaway engine at WOT (wide open throttle) while flying in formation
with a bud. My throttle cable broke while flying crosscountry at our
normal cruising altitude of 5-10 ft. AGL underneath the powerlines and
bridges while hopscotching over the hedgerows and terrorizing any
cow, deer, or other four-legged critter who happens to get in our way.
My options were either to hit the mag switches and kill the runaway
engine, or simply go with the flow and let the bird do it's thing and
climb, climb, climb. I chose the latter and radioed my bud that I was
diverting to the nearest airport. By the time we reached our
alternate, we had climbed up to about 8,000 ft. AGL at which time
I simply shut down the runaway engine and glided down to an
uneventful dead stick landing.