Sopwith Pups

Bulldog90 · 5 June 2005, 09:35 AM

Hi All,

Can you more learned forumites out there give me your opinions on why Sopwith Pups stayed in combat as long as they did? On the surface it seems that there were better types introduced ( faster, better armed). Was the deciding factor its maneuverability and rate of climb?

Bulldog 90

TomVrille · 5 June 2005, 11:56 AM

In addition to it's maneuverability, the handling qualities of the Pup were, in my uninformed opinion, a major factor in the design's durability in front line service.

Quoting from J.M. Bruce's forward to The Sopwith Pup : "In terms of affection and warmth of recollection, none was more highly regarded than the Sopwith Pup, at least when considered as a flying machine. Pilots of those fighter squadrons that had to go on flying the Pup in combat after it had been outrun and outgunned (though never outmanoeuvered) might have taken a less euphoric view of the little aircraft, yet more than one of them could testify that they owed their lives to the Pup's agility, despite its other shortcomings."

Simply stated, a pilot could feel comfortable in a Pup. The design had almost none of the control vices common in higher performance types. This was an important consideration for novice pilots coming out of the flight schools with inadequate hours of experience to rely on in a pinch. In sharp contrast to the Camel, for example, a Pup was unlikely to kill its own pilot.

jtisch · 5 June 2005, 12:54 PM

I am not a Pup expert (or expert on anything for that matter)

but I seem to remember reading somewhere that it performed well at high altitude, which seems odd as it had a rotary engine but on the other hand it also had a rather light wing loading. I'll rummage around my shop/library to see if I can find that reference.

MikeW · 5 June 2005, 01:20 PM

The Pup stayed in service too long with the RFC because the procurement system administered by the War Office was too slow to keep up with changing trends. The RFC was notably slower at getting new aircraft than the RNAS who had to jump through far fewer hoops to get an order sanctioned.

Even the RNAS kept Pups in the front line too long, nowhere near as long as the RFC though, but that's another story.

5 June 2005, 01:42 PM

Mike's got it right. pilots made the best of what they had, soldiering on with outmoded equipment right to the end. the legenday story of the Be 2c is the best example: an outmoded design at introduction, almost guaranteed lethal to its crews by the final merciful end of its service.

The fact the Pup had fine qualities is irrelevant. The system was just too ponderous, inefficient, conservative and pork-barreled to get the job done right.

F=MA

Bulldog90 · 5 June 2005, 02:06 PM

Thanks to all.

Its a remarkable the contrast then between the RFC and the Germans, who, despite the looooong service period with the Albatross DV's, seemed to be able to get new designs, in greater numbers, to the front quicker.

Bulldog 90

Taz · 5 June 2005, 06:27 PM

MvR seemed to enjoy his 61st victory against Bird in a Sopwith Pup in the prototype Triplane F.I 102/17. The Pup could indeed be outmaneuvered since sustained g loads take power and the Pup did not have that. Turns would result in loss of airspeed or altitude or both because of low power and a higher powered aircraft with similar wing loading would end up in a favorable position. Makes you wonder why the Pup was never up-engined because its wings never came off like the Sopwith Triplane's did. May have been a case of unbalancing the aircraft as happened when the Nieuport 11s were up-engined to make Nieuport 16s. Balance between engine, wing area, weight, and firepower were a close call in WW-I.

Terry Phillips
Taz

EricGoedkoop · 5 June 2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

Makes you wonder why the Pup was never up-engined

Was it ever tried?

Taz · 6 June 2005, 07:32 AM

Eric- Good question. Have to look at my Datafile and see. Good excuse to pick up the The Sopwith Pup File, as well.

Terry Phillips
Taz

6 June 2005, 07:42 AM

Most references to the Pup I've read don't refer to it as the most maneuverable aircraft in the world; IOW, a good maneuverable plane, yes, but, that wasn't the primary theme of the respodent's answers. They refer to it as a very friendly flier, with nice characteristics, capable of making anyone look good. In fact the only common reference to its flight envelope, performance-wise, that I've read, is that it held height when turning better than most other planes. Undoubtedly, this is due to light weight and really low wing loading.

It's also well-known now that Triplane wing failures were due to cost-cutting and shortcuts by Clayton and Shuttleworth, the sub-contractor that built many of them. No Sopwith manufactured planes failed, because they used heavier gauge flying wires.

Am I right on all this, or do I need to read more?

F=MA