Fokker Tripe VS. Sopwith Tripe

Well I have been locked in mortal cyber-combat for the last two hours - pitting the Fokker Dr.I against the Sopwith Triplane in Red Baron 3D. If these flight models are anywhere near as accurate as some claim them to be then it is my conclusion that the Fokker had the advantage. Which brings up the question: Did the Dr.I ever meet up with the Tripehound in combat? If so, anyone know the outcome? The Dr.I, if the flight model is accurate, must really have been a fantastic machine; setting aside it's structural flaws and focusing purely on manueverability. I tried in vane to scrap effectively against it with the Sop-Tripe but found the Dr.I out-turning me nearly every time. I had the stick over as far as I could and was flooring the rudder pedals to the max. I got off some good tail shots and blew off an aieleron or two on a couple of occasions but for the most part the Fokker had me. I have become very good at evasion tactics so I never let it get on my tail but man, what a chase. Finally, to make sure it wasn't my flying I switched over and had a go at the Tripehound with the Dr. I. I knocked 3 out of the sky in about 4 minutes before I was overwhelmed by sheer numbers. It's a damn good fight but the Dr.I has the edge in turning and climbing. BTW, I fought against my computer opponent handled by the artificial intelligence engine in the game, which I set to "Elite" level (the highest). When I piloted the Tripehound and set the A.I. for the Dr.I at "Ace" level, I had a much better fix on it and was able to down a couple but it still gave me a helluva time. Is there any of you who have piloted similar aircraft and have ever played this sim? I am very curious to know how realistic the flight model is.

[stephen]

great Q, Chris. Speak, pilots! You have a full audience!

Not really my area of expertise, but thinking the Dr.I came along after the Tripe, and having two guns over the Tripe's single gun makes me think it would be a better fighter. Of course the early Dr.Is had structural problems, but once remedied, many German pilots favored it over later generation fighters. Intersteing though, Stark must not have cared much for it, as he didn't stay with it. At least there doesn't seem to be much evinece that he flew one more than a few times at most.

I myself am no expert but I do have some limited second hand knowledge of the flying characteristics of the Fokker DR1. If you are familiar with some of the groups that build replicas of WWI aircraft you may have heard of a man named Fred Murrin (visit: http://www.cfanet.com/mlewis/gwaa.htm to see a picture of his DR1). This is not mearly a mock up. It is as close to the original DR1 as you can get. It has a hand made prop and uses an original rotary engine as its power plant. I have seen it fly on several occasions and can tell some specific characteristics from that and from hearing Fred talk. It flys fairly slow but climbs like an elevator (I saw it outclimb a Citabra with ease). Due to the rotation of the rotary engine it turns very slowly to the left and very abruptly to the right. It was probably very rarely flown inverted if at all and a loop would probably rip at least the top wing off. So in short the best thing this aircraft could probably do was climb and turn right. They did have a very nice Sopwith Tripe at the airshow but I have never seen it fly (I don't think this particular replica has ever flown) so unfortunately I have no specifics on this one. The wing struts on the Sopwith don't appear to be as strong as the DR1's. I hope this helps in your quest for some information on those magnificent flying machines.

Gentlemen,
Can't let this thread pass without a comment.
As far as structural problems in the Dr1, this was a problem with the manufacturing process, NOT the design! Fokker works were the most notorious for shoddy workmanship. Hard to believe but true. The next point I would like to make concerns the comment on the Dr1 losing it's top wing during loops.NOT TRUE! This aircraft loves to loop. I have spoken to many Fokker pilots on this matter. They all say its a dream to loop! The occasion where the Dr1 lost its top wing was in 1917, and once again, due to poor workmanship in the Fokker factory (Profile publications #55).
Next, concerning the appearence of stronger looking interplane struts on the Fokker vs the Sopwith. Again, not true. The interplane struts were hollow on the Fokker, solid on the Sopwith. The Fokker's interplane struts were actually an add on, and only installed to stop the visual impact of wing flex; a phenomenon that made german test pilots unconfortable. I truth, the wings of the Fokker needed no external bracing at all! Each wing had a dual box spar installed. This was a very strong a/c.
As far as I understand, your flight models seem to be somewhat accurate. My resources have told me the Fokker can whip the Sopwith hands down. It was smaller, quicker, and more responsive.

Regards,
C.Grube
(builder/owner of Dr1)

[Barrett]

Chaps: the Sopwith left service about a month before the Fokker appeared. According to victory lists, the RNAS bird went away in August '17 and the pre-production Dr.Is (flown by MvR, Voss and Wolff) appeared in September.

[Barrett]

Somebody with access to the specs can obtain a ballpark figure of the relative merits, to wit:
Divide gross weight by horsepower to get power loading for climb performance (lb per hp, less is better)
Divide gross weight by wing area to get wing loading for maneuverability (lb per sq ft, less is better) Note: you may not be able to find the area of the airfoil between the Dr.I's wheels, but that also is lift area.

[Barrett]

First, as I told Scott, I have NO idea how my previous posting got duplicated an hour and a half later. Go figger.
Secondly, when in doubt RTFM (read the, ah, flugezeuge manual.) Checked the Aerodrome's aircraft listings, and found the following specs for the two birds:

Sopwith Tripe, gross wt 1,540 lbs
With 110 hp Clerget, 14.0 lbs/hp
With 130 hp Clerget, 11.8 lbs/hp

Fokker Tripe, gross wt 1,290 lbs
With 110 Oberursel, etc, 11.7 lbs/hp

Therefore, the climb rate for the two birds was virtually identical when the Sopwith had the larger engine. If somebody has the wing area of each, we'll have a better idea of their maneuverability, though I need to measure the ailerons on both types at CFM, as that might give an advantage to the Sop in roll rate since it had 'em on all three wings vice just the top on the Dreidekker.
I thank you.

Barrett

The wing area of the Fokker Tripe is 200.85 sq.ft.
all 3 wings including sub-wing. I don't believe your evaluation of maneuverability based solely on wing area is entirely correct. You have not considered the fact that the Fokker had a completely different type of airfoil than the Sopwith. You would have to test both airfoils in a wind tunnel to determine the lift componant.
Also, according to Frank Tallman who flew both the Sopwith and the Fokker, he noticed no real difference in the advantage of having three ailerons (as in the Sopwith) as opposed to only one pair as on the Fokker. He also said that the Sopwith was almost sluggish compared to the nervous handling qualities of the Fokker.

I do not believe the Sopworth triplane was removed from service in August 1917. Lt Kurt Wusthoff brought down #N5429 from No. 1 RNAS squadron flown by Sub-Lt. Wilford on September 13, 1917. It was Wusthoff's 15th victory. I do not know what Wusthoffs mount was.