Fokker Tripe VS. Sopwith Tripe

Apparently, the Sopwith Triplane was still in service even later; Sopwith Triplane #5455, again from 1st Naval was claimed by
Wusthoff on 27 October 1917.

1st Naval sqdn was in Camels by 15 November 1917.

source: Henshaw, 'The Sky Their Battlefield'.


Regards,

MDD

Does anyone know what Wusthoff was flying when he brought down the two Sopwith Triplanes? Could he have been in a Fok. Dr1?

Some subjective figures,

Sop Tripe 117mph @ 5000ft
10 000ft in 9.5 minutes
15 000ft in 22 mins 20 secs

Fokker Dr1 115mph
1000m in 2.9 mins
2000m in 5.5 mins
3000m in 9.3 mins
4000m in 13.9 mins
5000m in 21.9


cam

[Barrett]

I stand corrected in the case of No. 1 (Naval) Squadron, which apparently flew Tripes until Nov 1917 (Rowley claimed on the 13th). Naval 3 had 'em until June or July 17; Naval 9 until Aug 17; and Naval 10 until Aug 17. At least that's my interpretation of ATT, though it's obvious that Naval 1's Triplane successes declined markedly after August.

[Barrett]

As long as we're on the subject, here's the top Sopwith Triplane scores. At least 16 pilots were credited with 5 or more under the RNAS system, of whom 6 were "real" aces (assuming their destroyed credits match up):

Collishaw Naval 10 14.2 (34)
Reid Naval 10 10.2 (19)
Little Naval 8 9.5 (24)
Minifie Naval 1 9.5 (17)
Dallas Naval 1 9 (16)
Rosevear Naval 1 5 (8)

The other leading Tripe aces under the Brit system were Booker (2.83 of 21) and Alexander (1 of 10). For some obscure reason, the Triplane squadrons seem to have had a much higher OOC rate than any others.

[Vigilant]

FWIW: Could the Tripes (with their good climb performance) have been given higher altitudes to work at, thus making it harder to see whether an OOC became a Crash?

[Barrett]

OK, here's the dope, straight from my yardstick to your computer. I spent part of this PM measuring the Sop and Fokker tripes and found that (mas or menos) the Sop's six ailerons equaled about 33.0 square feet of control area compared to about 13.8 for the Dr.I's two.
Furthermore, I compute the wing area of the Sop at 258.3 sq ft and the Fokker at 237.2 (can somebody check me on this with a published figure?). At those areas, wing loading equals (drum roll, the envelope please)

Sopwith 5.96 lbs sq/ft
Fokker 5.43 lbs sq/ft

Theoretically, the Dr.I was marginally more agile. It also had almost 3 feet less span, which might have partly offset the Sop's presumably superior roll rate.

[Ira_Silverman]

Barrett:

According to Ray Rimell at Albatros Productions Ltd., we have the following values for the wing areas:

Sopwith Triplane: 232 sq. ft. (loaded weight 1561 lb.) Calculated wing loading 6.73 lb/sq ft.

Fokker Dr.1: 200.1 sq. ft. (loaded weight 1291 lb.) Calculated wing loading 6.45 lb/sq ft.

Both quite close here, but the Dr.1 has a power loading 20% lower than the Sopwith, so should have been a significantly better climber.

References are Windsock Data-File No.5 (Fokker Dr.1) and Fokker Dr.1 Datafile Special (Both by Ray Rimell), and Windsock Datafile 22 (Sopwith Triplane) by Jack M. Bruce.

Best regards,

Ira

Barrett, The Profile Publications #55 for the Fokker triplane states that the total wing area comes to 200.85 sq.ft. This figure includes all three wings AND sub-wing.
The area for ailerons comes to 17.2 sq.ft., and the fully loaded a/c with a 110 hp Le Rhone weighs in at 1290 lbs.
These are the same figures as are on my full size replica plans.
As I stated before, I have read pilot reports stating that the Sopwith triplane was not as agile as the Fokker. The three aileron concept on the Sopwith apparently was not an advantage, and did not increase roll rate. In addition, the Sopwith's wings had built in dihedral. The Fokker, none!
This design feature in a/c as you probably know, creates stability. Stabile a/c are less maneuverable, thats why aerobatic a/c generally have straight wings with no dihedral. The Fokker was bulit with all three wings straight, horn balanced controls to lighten control input, and a full flying rudder, which my sources tell me has almost no feel to it at all while in flight!
Aileron feedback varies in stiffness, but that can be attributed to control cable location, tightness, and size of pullies used.

Just an added note. I am building a Full size Fokker Triplane. If you want info on specification, construction procedures, materials, or problems I have encountered while building this magnificent a/c please write. I would be more than happy to share my experiences with anyone who might be interested in this machine, or just curious about the process of building an aircraft.

Best regards,
C.Grube

[Barrett]

Ira & "Mr. C", thanks for your info, which certainly is more defnitive than any available to me. I think most of us Forumites would be interested in progress reports on the replica/reproduction Dr.I now under construction. (In the museum world, if it has a rotary, it's probably a reproduction.) The Champlin Museum's bird was a garage project that took a NY dentist 14 years to complete, then it was wrapped in a ball on the first takeoff. It was rebuilt before sale, but now has visible anhedral in the lower wings.
Now for the important stuff: what color scheme?
Shoot, we could have another Forum poll on the subject, which of course any Tripe constructor would be completely free to ignore, but I'll start the ball rolling:
How about Jacobs' sexy all-black machine with white crosses and the fire-breathing devil on the fuselage? (Of course, you could build two birds as Voss' machine: one with a dark cowl and one with yellow. You'd be a Forum Hero mit Eichenlaub fershure...)