German respect for the Sopwith Triplane

When reading various German accounts of the airwar during the late spring/early summer of 1917, it appears as if the Tripehound made the biggest impression on the German pilots. Reports from various star units, including Jastas 4,5,6, and 11 seem to indicate that, of all the new British planes starting to appear over the front (SE-5, Camel, Bristol, Tripe), the Tripe was the one that caused the most excitement. The fact that Kogenluft demanded German triplane designs also seems to support this argument.

My question is, why is this so? It would seem that hindsight suggests that each of the other "new" designs appearing at the same time ultimately proved better than the triplane. Witness that the Tripe 'disappeared' from service, while the Camel, SE-5(A) and F2B never did. Does this have something to do with problems inherent with the _intial_ designs of the SE, Camel and Bristol, problems the Tripe did not experience? Maybe the fact that Collishaw and some other excellent Naval pilots were flying the tripe also benefitted the performance of the Sopwith. I am not implying that the Tripe was not a fine plane; rather I am simply wondering why the Germans held it in such high esteem vs. the other new British designs.

Perhaps the German account of Ball's death in a 'Triplane' was just an assumption made by their propagandists that Britian's leading ace would be flying its finest plane?

IMHO, I believe there were 2 causes to the problem of the Tripehound. Initially, its maneuverability raised the eyebrows of the enemy and indeed in the early days of swirling dogfights that would have been an advantage. However, having only one gun and the move towards faster hit and run planes/tactics would have decreased its value. In some respects the Camel could be as maneuverable and sported 2 guns and the faster speed and ruggedness of the Se5a allowed the pilots to engage/disengage more at will.

The DrI would have had its heyday when it first came out but was grounded with that weak upper wing. By the time it came back in its relatively slow speed did not make it a great inteceptor. The D7 was evidence of the faster/stable/ruggedness paradigm versus the turn fighter-maneuverability was taking over in the German air arm as well as the Allies.

[stephen]

I don't think you can compare the German reaction to the Tripe and the next generation of fighters in the same breath. When the Tripe came out, it represented a collosal leap forward in design and maneuverability and created a large gap between itself and it's primary opponent, the Alb DII and DIII. By the time the Camel and SE 5 came along, this level of performance was not as spectacular and the opposition (DVa's, Pfalz DIIIa's, and the first DrI's) had somewhat improved, so the overall performance gap was more narrow.

Sensei, what you state makes Sense Thanks for the reply.

Stephen, not sure I agree that the Tripe was leaps and bounds above the Alb D-III. Afterall, many Tripes were torched by Germans flying the Albatros. Also, it appears to me that since the Tripe, Bristol, Camel and SE-5 were all introduced within 2-3 months of each other, the latter three were not the 'next' but rather the 'same' generation plane as the Tripehound. However, each of those planes were further refined, unlike the Tripe. This is probably due to the reasons cited by Sensei.

[Vigilant]

It may be that the other types mentioned all had their problems to be overcome in the early days:

The Camel needed a very skilled pilot to get the best out of it (and not kill himself in take off).

The SE5 (without the "a") was a bit underpowered and had engine reliability problems that caused Albert Ball to label it a "dud".

The Bristol Fighter was famously flown with the wrong tactics by 48 Squadron on its debut. Pilots also flew it cautiously at first due to unfounded rumours of structural weakness.

By contrast the Tripe seems to have been well used from the first?

Hypothetically yours,

Vigilant

[stevedrew]

Mark,

The German respect for the tripehound was indeed merited. Triplanes are incredibly manouevrable due to their smaller wingspan. The wings could be shortened when a third wing was added because of the added lift provided.

This also meant that the triplanes could climb like monkeys with their asses in fire. Despite the fact that they were invariably slower than biplanes (also due to the extra wing's added weight and drag), in the hands of an expert pilot like Collishaw and his Black Flight, Little, Dallas, and Minifie and their like, it was extremely deadly. Even with one gun.

Richthofen was reputedly on the ground watching 11 Albatros fighters of his circus saw an "unsuspecting" British flier alone on their side of the lines. They thought it would be nice to shoot him up in front of the Rittmeister. Instead of fleeing, the lone pilot engaged the 11 Albatros and out-manoeuvred them and shot holes through all of them before drawing them into range of his own anti-aircraft guns, then chasing them all home. The Rittmeister reportedly immediately demanded of Fokker to make a triplane for him. The Dr1 was born.

The triplane was phased out because it was considered underpowered and undergunned. As has been stated by others, its replacement, the Camel, was a magnificent aircraft, if not brutal and savage to those who would try to master her.

Steve Drew

The Sopwith Triplane actually entered combat 10 months before the F2b and SE5, and a full year before the Camel. The protoype N500 arrived at No.1 Wing RNAS in June 1916, and within minutes of its arrival was sent after a German reconnaisance machine. Dallas downed EA on July 1, Sept 30 and Oct 21 in this aircraft.

The main reason for the demise of the Triplane was the easier maintenance, rigging and twin guns of the Camel.

Although the Triplane is most associated with Nos.1, 8 and 10 Sqns, it was also used by others, including Naval Nine. It is interesting to note that some of the RNAS 2nd line units were still flying the Triplane in January 1918.

Regards,
Bob Pearson