Sopwith Triplane

Craig · 26 October 2000, 07:56 AM

Given that the Sopwith Triplane was such so markedly superior to the Albatros and Halberstadts that they were up against, I wonder why they were so few in number, and why their operational lifetime was relatively short. Was it a mainenance issue?

Perhaps I should ask the question this way: was the Camel really better? The triplane didn't seem to have the same nasty traits as its sucessor, i.e. the habit of killing its pilots the way the Camel did.

Craig

26 October 2000, 09:33 AM

I think there was some sort of political smoz over it. It was a RNAS plane, the RFC did not "accept" it?

None the less the Camel was superior being a wee bit faster, lighter, packing twin guns and turned faster to the right(perhaps too fast for novices).

Like you said it would have been more safe than a Camel, too bad it wasn't used for rookie RFC pilots then upgrade them to the Camel when they got some experience.

"Of all machines, the Triplane remains in my memory as the best . . . Other machines were faster, stronger, had better climb or vision; but none was so friendly as the Tripe."

Cecil Lewis

MikeW · 26 October 2000, 10:34 AM

The Sopwith Triplane had several failings as a fighter:

1 It was quite lightly built, the fuselage having much the same structure as the pup.

2 One slow firing Vickers gun means you have to be very accurate to do much damage.

3 The triplane was very stable - planes that are a "delight to fly" do not ultimately make for good fighters. Looks at todays agile fighter aircraft, they are so unstable they need a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. The camel was unstable, you would not try to fly a camel by letting go of the stick! In fact, the triplane was fitted with a smaller tailplane quite early on in a successful attempt to make it turn quicker.

The camel would have already been under way by the time the triplane came into service. It offered two guns, an upgrade path for more powerful engines, it was much more rugged, and very important for a slow aircraft that couldn't run to get out of trouble - it was very "agile".

27 October 2000, 07:25 AM

I thought the main advantage of the tripe was its maneuverability. Am I mistaken?

27 October 2000, 08:04 AM

There were some excellent responses to this question in my July 6 post in the archives, at ....archives/index.shmtl?451

Graeme · 27 October 2000, 11:26 AM

Even the most aerobatic machine has to fly home some time. Hawker more than held his own in an obsolete DH2 against von R's Albatros until he had to go home. At that point his superior aerobatic skills became useless.

MikeW · 27 October 2000, 11:57 AM

This thread asked was the Sopwith triplane better than the camel?

I do not dispute that the Triplane was agile, I would argue however that it could not change direction with anything like the speed or unpredictability of a camel.

In its day, the Triplane's main advantage was its rate of climb, a climbing turning fight would always give the Triplane the advantage over an Albatros. Try to dive away though and it was dead meat.

The triplane was good in its day, though by September 1917 losses were mounting. It would never have lived with the 1918 opposition. The camel provided double the fire power, more speed, and the ability to split-arse about violently without falling apart.

stephen · 27 October 2000, 08:13 PM

MikeW is righto about the twin Vickers thing. The RFC tried mounting twin guns on 5 (I think) Tripes but found that it was, in the words of

Mel Alexander, quite a bit "more sluggish," and lost much of its advantage in climb and agility.

Also, the Tripe's real benefit lay not only in its maneuverability, but its superior climb and its ability to hold the altitude advantage through maneuvers that would drop an Alb 500 feet.

I had two Triplane pilot pen pals, and both said the airframe was just too light. Not only did it leave no room for engine development, but it could not take much damage. Both pilots considered their planes no better than equal with a well flown Albatros. Of course, the Germans may have disagreed.

28 October 2000, 08:25 AM

There was a suggestion earlier of a political bun-fight over the Tripehound. In fact, the Tripe was not originally an RNAS order. The RNAS obtained its Tripes in a swap with the RFC for some SPAD 7s that were already available while the Sopwith was still proving.

In terms of the reasons for the Tripe's replacement, I agree with just about all of the previous comments. The Tripe had a wicked rate of climb (for early 1917), but the Camel was far more maneuverable, as well as being more heavily armed.

Graeme · 28 October 2000, 11:29 AM

Another factor that might well have been taken into consideration was the investigation undertaken by Jan Smuts (that ultimately led to the formation of the RAF). Smuts highlighted that with the RFC sourcing its machines from pretty much Royal Aircraft Factory outlets and the RNAS seeking the best machines available regardless of the manufacturer, there was doubling up of just about every procedure from production to acceptance. Inevitably, there were problems with resourcing the necessary material.

One of the first signs that Smuts' arguments had been accepted at high level was the fact that the Camel was supplied to both the RFC and the RNAS.

Graeme